BACKGROUND: Mechanisms of atrial fibrillation (AF) initiation are incompletely understood. We hypothesized that rate-dependent changes (restitution) in action potential duration (APD) and activation latency are central targets for clinical interventions that induce AF. We tested this hypothesis using clinical experiments and computer models. METHODS AND RESULTS: In 50 patients (20 persistent, 23 paroxysmal AF, 7 controls), we used monophasic action potential catheters to define left atrial APD restitution, activation latency, and AF incidence from premature extrastimuli. Isoproterenol (n=14), adenosine (n=10), or rapid pacing (n=36) was then initiated to determine impact on these parameters. Compared with baseline in AF patients, isoproterenol and rapid pacing decreased activation latency (64±14 versus 31±13 versus 24±14 ms; P<0.05), steepened maximum APD restitution slope (0.8±0.7 versus 1.7±0.5 versus 1.1±0.5; P<0.05), and increased AF incidence (12% versus 64% versus 84%; P<0.05). Conversely, adenosine shortened APD (P<0.05), yet increased activation latency (86±27 ms; P=0.002) so that maximum APD restitution slope did not steepen (1.0±0.5; P=NS), and AF incidence was unchanged (10%; P=NS). In controls, no intervention steepened APD restitution or initiated AF. Computational modeling revealed that isoproterenol steepened APD restitution by increased L-type calcium current and decreased activation latency via enhanced rapid delayed potassium reactifier current inactivation, whereas rapid pacing steepened APD restitution via increased cardiac inward potassium rectifier current. CONCLUSIONS: Steep APD restitution is a common pathway for AF initiation by isoproterenol and tachycardia via reduced activation latency that enables engagement of steep APD restitution at rapid rates. Modeling suggests that AF initiation from each intervention uses distinct ionic mechanisms. This insight may help design interventions to prevent AF.
BACKGROUND: Mechanisms of atrial fibrillation (AF) initiation are incompletely understood. We hypothesized that rate-dependent changes (restitution) in action potential duration (APD) and activation latency are central targets for clinical interventions that induce AF. We tested this hypothesis using clinical experiments and computer models. METHODS AND RESULTS: In 50 patients (20 persistent, 23 paroxysmal AF, 7 controls), we used monophasic action potential catheters to define left atrial APD restitution, activation latency, and AF incidence from premature extrastimuli. Isoproterenol (n=14), adenosine (n=10), or rapid pacing (n=36) was then initiated to determine impact on these parameters. Compared with baseline in AFpatients, isoproterenol and rapid pacing decreased activation latency (64±14 versus 31±13 versus 24±14 ms; P<0.05), steepened maximum APD restitution slope (0.8±0.7 versus 1.7±0.5 versus 1.1±0.5; P<0.05), and increased AF incidence (12% versus 64% versus 84%; P<0.05). Conversely, adenosine shortened APD (P<0.05), yet increased activation latency (86±27 ms; P=0.002) so that maximum APD restitution slope did not steepen (1.0±0.5; P=NS), and AF incidence was unchanged (10%; P=NS). In controls, no intervention steepened APD restitution or initiated AF. Computational modeling revealed that isoproterenol steepened APD restitution by increased L-type calcium current and decreased activation latency via enhanced rapid delayed potassium reactifier current inactivation, whereas rapid pacing steepened APD restitution via increased cardiac inward potassium rectifier current. CONCLUSIONS: Steep APD restitution is a common pathway for AF initiation by isoproterenol and tachycardia via reduced activation latency that enables engagement of steep APD restitution at rapid rates. Modeling suggests that AF initiation from each intervention uses distinct ionic mechanisms. This insight may help design interventions to prevent AF.
Authors: Zhibing Lu; Bo Cui; Bo He; Xiaorong Hu; Wei Wu; Liu Wu; Congxin Huang; Sunny S Po; Hong Jiang Journal: Cardiovasc Res Date: 2010-11-01 Impact factor: 10.787
Authors: Sanjiv M Narayan; Michael R Franz; Paul Clopton; Etienne J Pruvot; David E Krummen Journal: Circulation Date: 2011-06-06 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Felipe Atienza; Jesús Almendral; Javier Moreno; Ravi Vaidyanathan; Arkazdi Talkachou; Jérôme Kalifa; Angel Arenal; Julian P Villacastín; Esteban G Torrecilla; Ana Sánchez; Robert Ploutz-Snyder; José Jalife; Omer Berenfeld Journal: Circulation Date: 2006-11-13 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Oleg V Aslanidi; Michael A Colman; Jonathan Stott; Halina Dobrzynski; Mark R Boyett; Arun V Holden; Henggui Zhang Journal: Prog Biophys Mol Biol Date: 2011-07-07 Impact factor: 3.667
Authors: Thomas Crawford; Aman Chugh; Eric Good; Kentaro Yoshida; Krit Jongnarangsin; Matthew Ebinger; Frank Pelosi; Frank Bogun; Fred Morady; Hakan Oral Journal: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol Date: 2009-08-11
Authors: Robert S Oakes; Troy J Badger; Eugene G Kholmovski; Nazem Akoum; Nathan S Burgon; Eric N Fish; Joshua J E Blauer; Swati N Rao; Edward V R DiBella; Nathan M Segerson; Marcos Daccarett; Jessiciah Windfelder; Christopher J McGann; Dennis Parker; Rob S MacLeod; Nassir F Marrouche Journal: Circulation Date: 2009-03-23 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Sohail Zahid; Hubert Cochet; Patrick M Boyle; Erica L Schwarz; Kaitlyn N Whyte; Edward J Vigmond; Rémi Dubois; Mélèze Hocini; Michel Haïssaguerre; Pierre Jaïs; Natalia A Trayanova Journal: Cardiovasc Res Date: 2016-04-07 Impact factor: 10.787
Authors: Sohail Zahid; Kaitlyn N Whyte; Erica L Schwarz; Robert C Blake; Patrick M Boyle; Jonathan Chrispin; Adityo Prakosa; Esra G Ipek; Farhad Pashakhanloo; Henry R Halperin; Hugh Calkins; Ronald D Berger; Saman Nazarian; Natalia A Trayanova Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2016-04-19 Impact factor: 6.343