4.4 Article

Usefulness of a Low Resting Heart Rate to Predict Recurrence of Atrial Fibrillation After Catheter Ablation in People ≥65 Years of Age

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
Volume 122, Issue 1, Pages 97-101

Publisher

EXCERPTA MEDICA INC-ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2018.03.025

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Henan Science and Technology Research Project [172102310293]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A low resting heart rate (RHR) is associated with an increased risk of atrial fibrillation (AF), and this is common in older people. Whether a low RHR in older people can predict recurrence of AF after catheter ablation is unclear. A total of 329 consecutive patients >= 65 years of age with paroxysmal AF who underwent index circumferential pulmonary vein isolation were prospectively enrolled. A 10-second standard resting 12-lead electrocardiogram in sinus rhythm was recorded to measure the RR interval, P-wave duration, and PR interval. The RHR was calculated based on the mean RR interval. During a mean follow-up period of 17.0 +/- 8.3 months (range, 3 to 32 months), 96 (29.2%) patients developed recurrence of AF. The AF recurrence rate was 46.2%, 32.3%, and 25.4% in patients with an RHR <50, 50 to 59, and >= 60 beats/min, respectively (log-rank test, p = 0.009). Cox regression analysis with adjustment for P-wave duration and the CHADS(2) score showed that an RHR <50 beats/min (hazard ratio [HR] 1.92,95% confidence interval [CI] 1.12 to 3.28, p = 0.017), advanced interatrial block (HR 1.82, 95% CI 1.09 to 3.04, p = 0.022), and left atrial diameter (HR 1.05, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.09, p = 0.029) were independent predictors of recurrence of AF after catheter ablation. In conclusion, in people >= 65 years of age, an RHR <50 beats/min is an independent predictor of AF recurrence in patients who have undergone catheter ablation for paroxysmal AF. (C) 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. (Am J Cardiol 2018;122:97-101)

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available