Cited 89 times since 2011 (9.6 per year) source: Scopus Journal of the American College of Cardiology, Volume 57, Issue 3, 01 January 2011, Pages 324-331 Left atrial strain predicts reverse remodeling after catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation. Tops LF, Delgado V, Bertini M, Marsan NA, Den Uijl DW, Trines SA, Zeppenfeld K, Holman E, Schalij MJ, Bax JJ

Objectives

The purpose of this study was to assess left atrial (LA) strain during long-term follow-up after catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation and to find predictors for LA reverse remodeling.

Background

The association between LA reverse remodeling and improvement in LA strain after catheter ablation has not been investigated thus far.

Methods

In 148 patients undergoing catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation, LA volumes and LA strain were assessed with echocardiography at baseline and after a mean of 13.2 ± 6.7 months of follow-up. The study population was divided according to LA reverse remodeling at follow-up

responders were defined as patients who exhibited 15% or more reduction in maximum LA volume at long-term follow-up. Left atrial systolic (LAs) strain was assessed with tissue Doppler imaging.

Results

At follow-up, 93 patients (63%) were classified as responders, whereas 55 patients (37%) were nonresponders. At baseline, LAs strain was significantly higher in the responders as compared with the nonresponders (19 ± 8% vs. 14 ± 6%; p = 0.001). Among the responders, a significant increase in LAs strain was noted from baseline to follow-up (from 19 ± 8% to 22 ± 9%; p < 0.05), whereas no change was noted among the nonresponders. LAs strain at baseline was an independent predictor of LA reverse remodeling (odds ratio

1.813; 95% confidence interval

1.102 to 2.982; p = 0.019).

Conclusions

In the present study, 63% of the patients exhibited LA reverse remodeling after catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation, with a concomitant improvement in LA strain. LA strain at baseline was an independent predictor of LA reverse remodeling.

J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011 Jan;57(3):324-331