4.4 Article

Usefulness of Left Ventricular Diastolic Dysfunction Assessed by Pulsed Tissue Doppler Imaging as a Predictor of Atrial Fibrillation Recurrence After Successful Electrical Cardioversion

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
卷 108, 期 5, 页码 698-704

出版社

EXCERPTA MEDICA INC-ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2011.04.018

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The impact of left ventricular (LV) diastolic dysfunction on risk of atrial fibrillation (AF) recurrence is still unknown. The aim of this study was to assess the role of LV diastolic dysfunction in predicting AF recurrence after successful electrical cardioversion in patients with nonvalvular AF. In 51 patients with a first episode of nonvalvular AF undergoing successful electrical cardioversion, tissue Doppler echocardiography was performed to measure peak early diastolic mitral annulus velocity (E-m) and the ratio of mitral inflow to mitral annulus velocity at end-diastole (E/E-m). Clinical end points were recurrent persistent AF at 2-week follow-up (early AF recurrence [ERAF]) and at 1-year follow-up (including ERAF and late AF recurrence). Seventeen patients showed evidence of ERAF, whereas late AF recurrence occurred in another 5 patients. In time-independent analysis E/E-m (odds ratio [OR] 1.746, p = 0.0084) and indexed LV end-systolic volume (OR 1.083, p = 0.040) were independent predictors of ERAF. Based on a logistic model risk of ERAF was 25% for an E/E-m of 5.6 but increased to 50% for an E/E-m of 8.1 and to 75% for an E/E-m of 10.5. In time-dependent analysis E/E-m emerged as the only predictor of ERAF (OR 1.757, p = 0.0078). E/E-m also independently predicted risk of recurrence at 1 year in time-independent (OR 1.757, p = 0.0078) and time-dependent (OR 1.319, p = 0.0003) analyses. In conclusion LV diastolic dysfunction independently predicts AF recurrence in patients with nonvalvular AF undergoing successful electrical cardioversion. (C) 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. (Am J Cardiol 2011;108:698-704)

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

4.4
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