Theo Lankveld1, Cees B de Vos2, Ione Limantoro2, Stef Zeemering3, Elton Dudink2, Harry J Crijns2, Ulrich Schotten4. 1. Department of Cardiology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands; Department of Physiology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 2. Department of Cardiology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Physiology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Physiology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands. Electronic address: schotten@maastrichtuniversity.nl.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Electrical cardioversion (ECV) is one of the rhythm control strategies in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (AF). Unfortunately, recurrences of AF are common after ECV, which significantly limits the practical benefit of this treatment in patients with AF. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to identify noninvasive complexity or frequency parameters obtained from the surface electrocardiogram (ECG) to predict sinus rhythm (SR) maintenance after ECV and to compare these ECG parameters with clinical predictors. METHODS: We studied a wide variety of ECG-derived time- and frequency-domain AF complexity parameters in a prospective cohort of 502 patients with persistent AF referred for ECV. RESULTS: During 1-year follow-up, 161 patients (32%) maintained SR. The best clinical predictor of SR maintenance was antiarrhythmic drug (AAD) treatment. A model including clinical parameters predicted SR maintenance with a mean cross-validated area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.62 ± 0.05. The best single ECG parameter was the dominant frequency (DF) on lead V6. Combining several ECG parameters predicted SR maintenance with a mean AUC of 0.64 ± 0.06. Combining clinical and ECG parameters improved prediction to a mean AUC of 0.67 ± 0.05. Although the DF was affected by AAD treatment, excluding patients taking AADs did not significantly lower the predictive performance captured by the ECG. CONCLUSION: ECG-derived parameters predict SR maintenance during 1-year follow-up after ECV at least as good as known clinical predictors of rhythm outcome. The DF proved to be the most powerful ECG-derived predictor.
BACKGROUND: Electrical cardioversion (ECV) is one of the rhythm control strategies in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (AF). Unfortunately, recurrences of AF are common after ECV, which significantly limits the practical benefit of this treatment in patients with AF. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to identify noninvasive complexity or frequency parameters obtained from the surface electrocardiogram (ECG) to predict sinus rhythm (SR) maintenance after ECV and to compare these ECG parameters with clinical predictors. METHODS: We studied a wide variety of ECG-derived time- and frequency-domain AF complexity parameters in a prospective cohort of 502 patients with persistent AF referred for ECV. RESULTS: During 1-year follow-up, 161 patients (32%) maintained SR. The best clinical predictor of SR maintenance was antiarrhythmic drug (AAD) treatment. A model including clinical parameters predicted SR maintenance with a mean cross-validated area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.62 ± 0.05. The best single ECG parameter was the dominant frequency (DF) on lead V6. Combining several ECG parameters predicted SR maintenance with a mean AUC of 0.64 ± 0.06. Combining clinical and ECG parameters improved prediction to a mean AUC of 0.67 ± 0.05. Although the DF was affected by AAD treatment, excluding patients taking AADs did not significantly lower the predictive performance captured by the ECG. CONCLUSION: ECG-derived parameters predict SR maintenance during 1-year follow-up after ECV at least as good as known clinical predictors of rhythm outcome. The DF proved to be the most powerful ECG-derived predictor.
Authors: José María Lillo-Castellano; Juan José González-Ferrer; Manuel Marina-Breysse; José Bautista Martínez-Ferrer; Luisa Pérez-Álvarez; Javier Alzueta; Juan Gabriel Martínez; Aníbal Rodríguez; Juan Carlos Rodríguez-Pérez; Ignasi Anguera; Xavier Viñolas; Arcadio García-Alberola; Jorge G Quintanilla; José Manuel Alfonso-Almazán; Javier García; Luis Borrego; Victoria Cañadas-Godoy; Nicasio Pérez-Castellano; Julián Pérez-Villacastín; Javier Jiménez-Díaz; José Jalife; David Filgueiras-Rama Journal: Europace Date: 2020-05-01 Impact factor: 5.214
Authors: Nicklas Vinter; Anne Sofie Frederiksen; Andi Eie Albertsen; Gregory Y H Lip; Morten Fenger-Grøn; Ludovic Trinquart; Lars Frost; Dorthe Svenstrup Møller Journal: Open Heart Date: 2020-06
Authors: Eva María Cirugeda Roldan; Sofía Calero; Víctor Manuel Hidalgo; José Enero; José Joaquín Rieta; Raúl Alcaraz Journal: Entropy (Basel) Date: 2020-07-07 Impact factor: 2.524
Authors: Albert Dasí; Aditi Roy; Rafael Sachetto; Julia Camps; Alfonso Bueno-Orovio; Blanca Rodriguez Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2022-09-15 Impact factor: 4.755