| Literature DB >> 32571347 |
Kanako Akamatsu1, Takahide Ito2, Masatoshi Miyamura1, Yumiko Kanzaki1, Koichi Sohmiya1, Masaaki Hoshiga1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Tissue Doppler imaging (TDI)-derived atrial electromechanical delay (AEMD) has been reported to be useful for detecting paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF). However, its usefulness remains unknown when analyzed along with patients seemingly at high-risk for AF as controls. From this standpoint, we investigated whether AEMD would be of use for identifying patients with PAF.Entities:
Keywords: Atrial electromechanical delay; Atrial fibrillation; Tissue Doppler imaging
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32571347 PMCID: PMC7310390 DOI: 10.1186/s12947-020-00205-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cardiovasc Ultrasound ISSN: 1476-7120 Impact factor: 2.062
Fig. 1Flowchart for the enrollment of study individuals. CVD, cardiovascular disease; TEE, transesophageal echocardiography; TTE, transthoracic echocardiography
Fig. 2Representative images of explanation how to measure AEMD obtained from: a a healthy subject; b a patient with multiple cardiovascular risk factors; c a PAF patient
Fig. 3Bland–Altman plot analysis for assessing interobserver variability of AEMD in randomly selected 40 subjects. See the text
Demographic data of the study groups
| Parameters | Healthy controls | Disease controls | PAF patients | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 60 ± 14 | 66 ± 15 | 62 ± 13 | 0.21 |
| Female, n (%) | 19 (38) | 12 (36) | 17 (27) | 0.41 |
| Body mass index | 22.0 ± 3.3 | 23.1 ± 4.1 | 24.5 ± 3.6†§ | < 0.001 |
| CHADS2 score | 0.18 ± 0.39 | 2.88 ± 1.05† | 1.27 ± 1.10†‡ | < 0.001 |
| CHA2DS2-VASc score | 0.82 ± 0.92 | 4.15 ± 1.48† | 2.14 ± 1.63†‡ | < 0.001 |
| Congestive heart failure, n (%) | 0 (0) | 4 (12) | 15 (24) | < 0.001 |
| Hypertension, n (%) | 0 (0) | 18 (55) | 37 (59) | < 0.001 |
| Age ≥ 75 years, n (%) | 8 (16) | 7 (21) | 11 (17) | 0.83 |
| Diabetes mellitus, n (%) | 0 (0) | 4 (12) | 11 (17) | < 0.001 |
| Dyslipidemia, n (%) | 0 (0) | 16 (48) | 14 (22) | < 0.001 |
| Stroke/TIA, n (%) | 0 (0) | 32 (97) | 3 (5) | < 0.001 |
| Peripheral artery disease, n (%) | 0 (0) | 2 (6) | 5 (8) | 0.046 |
| eGFR (mL/min/1.73m2) | 74 ± 23 | 64 ± 23* | 68 ± 17 | 0.060 |
| Cardiac medications | ||||
| Digitalis, n (%) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | – |
| Diuretics, n (%) | 0 (0) | 3 (9) | 10 (16) | 0.013 |
| Nitrates, n (%) | 0 (0) | 2 (6) | 0 (0) | 0.031 |
| ARBs/ACEIs, n (%) | 0 (0) | 12 (36) | 23 (37) | < 0.001 |
| Calcium channel blockers, n (%) | 0 (0) | 11 (33) | 20 (32) | < 0.001 |
| Beta-blockers, n (%) | 0 (0) | 3 (9) | 21 (33) | < 0.001 |
| Antiarrhythmic drugs, n (%) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 20 (32) | < 0.001 |
Values are mean (±SD) or number of subjects (%)
ACEI Indicates angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, ARB Angiotensin receptor blockers, eGFR Estimated glomerular filtration rate, and TIA transient ischemic attack
*P < 0.05 and †P < 0.01 vs Healthy controls; §P < 0.05 and ‡P < 0.01 vs Disease controls
Echocardiographic data of the study groups
| Parameters | Healthy controls | Disease controls | PAF patients | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LA diameter (mm) | 32 ± 5 | 40 ± 7† | 43 ± 7† | < 0.001 |
| LA volume (mL) | 32 ± 10 | 44 ± 10† | 49 ± 15† | < 0.001 |
| LA volume index (mL/m2) | 19 ± 6 | 27 ± 5† | 28 ± 9† | < 0.001 |
| LV end-diastolic dimension (mm) | 42 ± 5 | 47 ± 7† | 49 ± 7† | < 0.001 |
| LV ejection fraction (%) | 65 ± 5 | 61 ± 12 | 62 ± 8 | 0.088 |
| Thickness of IVS (mm) | 9 ± 1 | 10 ± 2† | 10 ± 2† | < 0.001 |
| Thickness of posterior wall (mm) | 9 ± 1 | 10 ± 1† | 9 ± 2†§ | < 0.001 |
| LV mass (g) | 120 ± 29 | 177 ± 65† | 171 ± 65† | < 0.001 |
| LV mass index (g/m2) | 73 ± 14 | 108 ± 33† | 98 ± 30† | < 0.001 |
| LV hypertrophy (%) | 0 (0) | 17 (52) | 17 (27) | < 0.001 |
| E velocity (cm/s) | 63 ± 13 | 60 ± 23 | 64 ± 17 | 0.59 |
| A velocity (cm/s) | 71 ± 20 | 80 ± 25 | 61 ± 23*‡ | 0.001 |
| E/A | 0.95 ± 0.33 | 0.83 ± 0.46* | 1.21 ± 0.56*‡ | < 0.001 |
| Deceleration time (ms) | 213 ± 56 | 224 ± 68 | 205 ± 70 | 0.41 |
| E’, septal (ms) | 7.7 ± 2.3 | 6.1 ± 2.5† | 7.7 ± 2.4‡ | < 0.001 |
| E’, lateral (ms) | 10.3 ± 3.1 | 7.4 ± 2.9† | 9.5 ± 2.8‡ | < 0.001 |
| Averaged E’ (ms) | 9.0 ± 2.5 | 6.7 ± 2.6† | 8.6 ± 2.3‡ | < 0.001 |
| A’, septal (ms) | 10.0 ± 1.7 | 8.8 ± 2.2* | 7.6 ± 2.6†§ | < 0.001 |
| A’, lateral (ms) | 10.8 ± 2.5 | 9.5 ± 2.6* | 8.0 ± 3.0†§ | < 0.001 |
| Averaged A’ (ms) | 10.4 ± 1.8 | 9.2 ± 2.3* | 7.8 ± 2.7†§ | < 0.001 |
| Averaged E/E’, | 7.4 ± 2.3 | 10.0 ± 5.4 | 7.9 ± 2.8 | 0.086 |
| Averaged E’/A’ | 0.90 ± 0.33 | 0.79 ± 0.42 | 1.27 ± 0.63†‡ | < 0.001 |
Values are mean (±SD) or number of subjects (%)
IVS Indicates interventricular septum
*P < 0.05 and †P < 0.01 vs Healthy controls; §P < 0.05 and ‡P < 0.01 vs Disease controls
Fig. 4Comparisons of the septal EMD (a), lateral EMD (b), and Intra-LA EMD (c) between the study groups. Data are shown in mean (±SD)
Fig. 5ROC analysis for identifying PAF patients, comparing AUCs of AEMD-related variables (a), and AUCs of the lateral EMD, LA volume index, and the averaged A’ (b)
Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis for identifying PAF patients
| Parameters | Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR | 95% CI | OR | 95% CI | |||
| Age (per 10 years) | 0.98 | 0.77–1.24 | 0.85 | 1.33 | 0.87–2.05 | 0.19 |
| Body mass index per 5.0 | 2.18 | 1.34–3.56 | 0.002 | 1.99 | 1.02–3.88 | 0.044 |
| CHA2DS2-VASc score | 1.0 | 0.84–1.19 | 1.0 | 0.77 | 0.56–1.06 | 0.11 |
| eGFR (per 10 mL/min/1.73m2) | 0.94 | 0.80–1.11 | 0.49 | 1.25 | 0.95–1.64 | 0.11 |
| LA volume index (per 5 mL/m2) | 1.96 | 1.43–2.69 | < 0.001 | 2.25 | 1.44–3.51 | < 0.001 |
| LV hypertrophy (= 1) | 1.43 | 0.66–3.10 | 0.36 | 0.38 | 0.11–1.28 | 0.12 |
| Averaged A’ | 0.68 | 0.58–0.80 | < 0.001 | 0.68 | 0.55–0.84 | < 0.001 |
| Lateral EMD (per 10 ms) | 1.41 | 1.20–1.65 | < 0.001 | 1.25 | 1.03–1.52 | 0.023 |
Abbreviations are the same as in Table 1