4.0 Article

Different characteristics of postoperative atrial tachyarrhythmias between congenital and non-congenital heart disease

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10840-019-00575-2

关键词

Atrial tachyarrythmias; Congenital heart disease; Catheter ablation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose The chance of encountering tachyarrhythmias has been increasing in adult congenital heart disease (CHD) patients with previous open-heart surgery, along with the improvement of their longevity. However, the characteristics of these arrhythmias remain to be elucidated. Methods We examined the characteristics of atrial tachyarrhythmias (ATs) in 26 consecutive CHD patients (M/F 17/9) referred for catheter ablation and compared them with 16 non-CHD patients with cardiac surgery (M/F 11/5). Results The CHD group was younger and had a longer period from cardiac surgery until the occurrence of ATs compared with the non-CHD group (44.8 +/- 19.5 vs. 67.6 +/- 12.5 years old, and 23.3 +/- 13.2 vs. 6.3 +/- 4.9 years, respectively, both P < 0.05). Multiple ATs were equally induced in both groups, 12 in CHD (46.1%) and 5 in non-CHD (31.3%). Although the prevalence of macro-reentrant ATs (cavo-tricuspid isthmus-dependent atrial flutter (AFL) or intra-atrial reentrant tachycardia (IART)) was comparable, the mechanisms were different between the 2 groups (AFL and IART), 34% and 27% in CHD and 71% and 24% in non-CHD, respectively. Furthermore, focal AT (FAT) was noted in 9 patients (34.6%) in CHD but none in non-CHD (P < 0.05). Electroanatomical mapping showed that the surface area and low-voltage area (LVA) of the right atrium were significantly larger in CHD than in non-CHD (197.1 +/- 56.4 vs. 132.4 +/- 41.2 cm(2), and 40.8 +/- 33.3 vs. 13.6 +/- 9.0 cm(2), respectively, both P < 0.05). Ten out of 14 FATs (71.4%) were highly associated with LVA, especially near the crista terminalis. Conclusions The development of ATs in CHD patients could be associated with large atrial remodeling, resulting in complicated ATs.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据