Ke Chen1, Rong Bai2, Wenning Deng2, Chuanyu Gao3, Jing Zhang3, Xianqing Wang3, Shunbao Wang3, Haixia Fu3, Yonghui Zhao3, Jiaying Zhang4, Jianzeng Dong2, Changsheng Ma2. 1. Department of Cardiology, Henan Provincial People's Hospital, Zhengzhou University, Henan, China; Department of Cardiology, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China. 2. Department of Cardiology, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China. 3. Department of Cardiology, Henan Provincial People's Hospital, Zhengzhou University, Henan, China. 4. Department of Cardiology, Henan Provincial People's Hospital, Zhengzhou University, Henan, China. Electronic address: jy_zhang12@126.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: New-onset atrial fibrillation (AF) is not uncommon after ablation of typical atrial flutter (AFL); however, limited data are available for a risk prediction model for the future occurrence of AF in patients with typical AFL undergoing successful catheter ablation. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine whether the HATCH score (which is based on hypertension, age ≥75 years, transient ischemic attack or stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and heart failure) is useful for risk prediction of subsequent AF after ablation of typical AFL. METHODS: A total of 216 consecutive patients presenting with typical AFL and no history of AF who underwent successful catheter ablation were enrolled in the study. The clinical endpoint was occurrence of new-onset AF during follow-up after ablation. RESULTS: During a follow-up period of 29.1 ± 18.3 months, 85 patients (39%) experienced at least 1 episode of AF. Multivariate Cox regression analysis demonstrated that the HATCH score (hazard ratio 1.784; 95% confidence interval 1.352-2.324; P < .001) and left atrial diameter (hazard ratio 1.270; 95% confidence interval 1.115-1.426; P < .001) were independently associated with new-onset AF after typical AFL ablation. The area under the receiver operator characteristic curve based on the HATCH score for prediction of new-onset AF was 0.743. The HATCH score could be used to stratify the patients into 2 groups with different incidences of new-onset AF (69% vs 27%, P < .001) at a cutoff value of 2. CONCLUSIONS: The HATCH score is a useful predictor of new-onset AF after typical AFL ablation.
BACKGROUND: New-onset atrial fibrillation (AF) is not uncommon after ablation of typical atrial flutter (AFL); however, limited data are available for a risk prediction model for the future occurrence of AF in patients with typical AFL undergoing successful catheter ablation. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine whether the HATCH score (which is based on hypertension, age ≥75 years, transient ischemic attack or stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and heart failure) is useful for risk prediction of subsequent AF after ablation of typical AFL. METHODS: A total of 216 consecutive patients presenting with typical AFL and no history of AF who underwent successful catheter ablation were enrolled in the study. The clinical endpoint was occurrence of new-onset AF during follow-up after ablation. RESULTS: During a follow-up period of 29.1 ± 18.3 months, 85 patients (39%) experienced at least 1 episode of AF. Multivariate Cox regression analysis demonstrated that the HATCH score (hazard ratio 1.784; 95% confidence interval 1.352-2.324; P < .001) and left atrial diameter (hazard ratio 1.270; 95% confidence interval 1.115-1.426; P < .001) were independently associated with new-onset AF after typical AFL ablation. The area under the receiver operator characteristic curve based on the HATCH score for prediction of new-onset AF was 0.743. The HATCH score could be used to stratify the patients into 2 groups with different incidences of new-onset AF (69% vs 27%, P < .001) at a cutoff value of 2. CONCLUSIONS: The HATCH score is a useful predictor of new-onset AF after typical AFL ablation.
Authors: Jorge Romero; Juan Carlos Diaz; Luigi Di Biase; Saurabh Kumar; David Briceno; Usha B Tedrow; Carolina R Valencia; Samuel H Baldinger; Bruce Koplan; Laurence M Epstein; Roy John; Gregory F Michaud; William G Stevenson Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2017-01-09 Impact factor: 1.900
Authors: Justyna Rzucidlo; Priya Panday; Marissa Lombardo; Eric H Shulman; David S Park; Scott A Bernstein; Lior Jankelson; Douglas Holmes; Anthony Aizer; Larry A Chinitz; Chirag R Barbhaiya Journal: J Atr Fibrillation Date: 2021-06-30
Authors: Styliani Koutsaki; Ioannis Koutelekos; Georgia Gerogianni; Maria Koutsaki; Aggeliki Koukouzeli; Georgia Fouka; Maria Polikandrioti Journal: Mater Sociomed Date: 2018-03