| Literature DB >> 30208099 |
Darae Kim1, Chi Young Shim1, Geu-Ru Hong1, In Jeong Cho1, Seung Hyun Lee2, Hyuk-Jae Chang1, Sak Lee2, Jong-Won Ha1, Byung-Chul Chang2.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We sought to investigate determinants and prognosis of sinus node dysfunction (SND) after surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) with concomitant mitral valve (MV) surgery. A total of 202 patients who underwent surgical AF ablation with concomitant MV surgery were studied. STUDY DESIGN ANDEntities:
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30208099 PMCID: PMC6135507 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0203828
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Baseline characteristics.
| Without SND | With SND | p-value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age, years | 56±12 | 56±10 | 0.819 |
| Male gender, n (%) | 64 (39) | 14 (38) | 0.525 |
| Body mass index, n (%) | 24.5±18.2 | 23.6±3.6 | 0.774 |
| Hypertension, n (%) | 49 (30) | 17 (46) | 0.039 |
| Diabetes mellitus, n (%) | 20 (12) | 7 (19) | 0.189 |
| Coronary artery disease, n (%) | 11 (7) | 2 (5) | 0.572 |
| CHA2DS2-VASc score | 1.8±1.4 | 1.9±1.2 | 0.696 |
| Mitral stenosis, n (%) | 82 (50) | 12 (32) | 0.057 |
| Moderate, n (%) | 7 (4) | 1(3) | 0.999 |
| Severe, n (%) | 75 (45) | 11(29) | 0.098 |
| Mitral regurgitation, n (%) | 83 (50) | 25(68) | 0.057 |
| Moderate, n (%) | 4 (3) | 0 (0) | 0.999 |
| Severe, n (%) | 79 (48) | 25 (67) | 0.044 |
| | |||
| Carpentier type I | 6 (4) | 2 (5) | 0.640 |
| Carpentier type II | 49 (30) | 17 (46) | 0.080 |
| Carpentier type IIIa | 25 (15) | 4 (11) | 0.350 |
| Carpentier type IIIb | 3 (2) | 2 (5) | 0.227 |
| Repair, n (%) | 61 (37) | 20 (54) | 0.062 |
| Replacement, n (%) | 105 (64) | 17 (46) | 0.188 |
| Concomitant AV surgery, n (%) | 16 (10) | 2 (5) | 0.322 |
| Concomitant TAP, n (%) | 84 (51) | 26 (70) | 0.024 |
| Duration of cardiopulmonary bypass, min | 148 ± 69 | 147 ± 30 | 0.397 |
| Duration of Aortic cross clamping, min | 105 ± 34 | 110 ± 26 | 0.949 |
| Size of ring | 30 ± 2 | 29 ± 7 | 0.286 |
| Size of valve | 25 ± 9 | 25 ± 10 | 0.870 |
| Valve type, n (%) | |||
| Mechanical valve | 85 (81) | 14 (82) | 0.999 |
| Bioprosthetic valve | 20 (19) | 3 (18) | 0.999 |
SND, sinus node dysfunction; LVEDD, left ventricular end-diastolic dimension; LVESD, left ventricular end-systolic dimension; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; LV, left ventricle; LAdia, left atrial diameter; LAVI, left atrial volume index; RVSP, right ventricular systolic pressure; HTN, hypertension; AV, aortic valve; TAP, tricuspid annuloplasty
Preoperative and postoperative structural and electrocardiographic characteristics.
| Without SND | With SND | p-value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| | |||
| LVEDD, mm | 54.2±8.9 | 55.9±10.6 | 0.065 |
| LVESD, mm | 37.5±7.5 | 38.8±5.4 | 0.334 |
| LVEF, % | 61.1±10.3 | 63.5±6.8 | 0.201 |
| LV mass index, g/m2 | 112±37 | 136±63 | 0.003 |
| LAdia, mm | 58±8 | 63±10 | 0.027 |
| LAVI, mL/m2 | 101±40 | 132±60 | <0.001 |
| RVSP, mm Hg | 41±13 | 46±13 | 0.041 |
| Pulmonary HTN ≥ moderate, n (%) | 34 (21) | 14 (38) | 0.011 |
| Residual MR > mod | 3 (1.9) | 0 (0) | 0.999 |
| MDPG, mm Hg | 4.0 ± 1.4 | 3.7 ± 1.2 | 0.167 |
| LVEDD, mm | 51.4 ± 6.8 | 53.3 ± 5.7 | 0.175 |
| LVESD, mm | 36.7 ± 6.6 | 37.6 ± 5.3 | 0.125 |
| LVEF, % | 57.1 ± 10.1 | 58.6 ± 9.2 | 0.429 |
| LV mass index, g/m2 | 104.6 ± 27.9 | 121.6 ± 32.0 | 0.002 |
| LAVI, mL/m2 | 72.3 ± 28.1 | 85.2 ± 36.4 | 0.002 |
| RVSP, mm Hg | 37.5 ± 11.4 | 41.5 ± 10.5 | 0.065 |
| Residual MR > mod | 3 (1.9) | 0 (0) | 0.999 |
| MDPG, mm Hg | 3.5 ± 1.2 | 3.9 ± 1.6 | 0.175 |
| LVEDD, mm | 49.9 ± 5.7 | 51.6 ± 4.7 | 0.186 |
| LVESD, mm | 34.6 ± 6.0 | 36.0 ± 4.0 | 0.272 |
| LVEF, % | 61.0 ± 9.3 | 60.0 ± 8.5 | 0.615 |
| LV mass index, g/m2 | 97.4 ± 22.3 | 107.7 ± 25.0 | 0.045 |
| LAVI, mL/m2 | 63.0 ± 22.9 | 69.0 ± 21.3 | 0.339 |
| RVSP, mm Hg | 31.3 ± 9.3 | 32.3 ± 12.5 | 0.673 |
| Ventricular rate, beats per minute | 77±19 | 69±13 | 0.064 |
| Atrial fibrillation, n (%) | 165 (100) | 37 (100) | - |
| Ventricular rate, beats per minute | 77±15 | 74 ±12 | 0.461 |
| Atrial fibrillation, n (%) | 26 (16) | 14 (38) | 0.003 |
| Permanent PM implantation, n (%) | 0 (0) | 4 (11) | 0.001 |
| Ventricular rate, beats per minute | 73±11 | 67±12 | 0.062 |
| Atrial fibrillation, n (%) | 31 (19) | 17 (46) | 0.001 |
| Permanent PM implantation, n (%) | 0 (0) | 7 (19) | <0.001 |
| In hospital | 31(18) | 5 (14) | 0.311 |
| Out of hospital (6 mo) | 3 (2) | 0 (0) | 1.000 |
| Out of hospital (12 mo) | 3 (2) | 0 (0) | 1.000 |
| In hospital | 1 (0.6) | 0 (0) | 0.817 |
| Out of hospital (6 mo) | 25 (16) | 6 (17) | 0.803 |
| Out of hospital (12 mo) | 10 (6) | 8 (23) | 0.007 |
SND, sinus node dysfunction; PM, pacemaker
Fig 1Freedom from AF at the 6-month and 12-months follow ups.
Percentages of patients who were free from AF at the 6-month and 12-month follow-ups.
Fig 2Time to event curves for permanent pacemaker implantation.
Clinical outcomes.
| Without SND | With SND | p-value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| All-cause death, n (%) | 2 (1) | 0 (0) | 0.666 |
| Bleeding reoperation, n (%) | 1 (1) | 2 (5) | 0.087 |
| Wound revision, n (%) | 1 (1) | 2 (5) | 0.087 |
| Pericardial window formation, n (%) | 7 (4) | 3 (8) | 0.269 |
| Hospital stay, days | 14 (11–18) | 19 (13–22) | <0.001 |
| All-cause death, n (%) | 0 (0) | 1 (3) | 0.183 |
| Thromboembolic events, n (%) | 10 (6) | 3 (8) | 0.437 |
| Hospitalization due to heart failure, n (%) | 18 (11) | 3 (8) | 0.425 |
| Redo-valve surgery, n (%) | 4 (2) | 0 (0) | 0.422 |
Predictors of SND after surgical AF ablation in patients undergoing MV surgery.
| Hazard ratio | 95% CI | p-value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 0.985 | 0.962–1.027 | 0.810 |
| Male gender | 1.149 | 0.464–2.849 | 0.764 |
| Indication of MV surgery (MS vs. MR) | 1.418 | 0.459–4.061 | 0.515 |
| Preoperative LAVI, (per 10 mL/m2) | 1.126 | 1.026–1.236 | 0.001 |
| Preoperative LV mass index, g/m2 | 1.008 | 1.003–1.022 | 0.164 |
| Preoperative RVSP, mm Hg | 1.012 | 0.979–1.046 | 0.481 |
| Concomitant TAP | 1.664 | 0.663–4.174 | 0.278 |
LA, left atrium; LV, left ventricle; RVSP, right ventricular systolic pressure; TAP, tricuspid annuloplasty; AV, aortic valve
Fig 3Performances of LAVI and LAdia for prediction of SND.