| Literature DB >> 35438261 |
Constantin Mork1,2, Simon Adrian Amacher3, Brigitta Gahl1, Luca Koechlin1,2, Jules Miazza1, Thibault Schaeffer1, Lena Schmuelling4, Jens Bremerich4,5, Denis Berdajs1,5, Nadine Cueni3, Michael Kühne2,5, Christian Mueller2,5, Stefan Osswald2,5, Oliver Reuthebuch1,5, Ulrich Schurr1, Christian Sticherling2,5, Andrea Kopp Lugli5,6, Stephan Marsch3, Hans Pargger3, Martin Siegemund3,7, Friedrich Eckstein1,5, Alexa Hollinger3,5, David Santer1.
Abstract
AIMS: New-onset atrial fibrillation (NOAF) is the most common complication after cardiac surgery, occurring in 25-50% of patients. It is associated with post-operative stroke, increased mortality, prolonged hospital length of stay, and higher treatment costs. Previous small observational studies have identified the left atrium as a source of the electrical rotors and foci maintaining NOAF, but confirmation by a large prospective clinical study is still missing. The aim of the proposed study is to investigate whether the source of NOAF lies in the left atrium. The correct identification of NOAF-maintaining structures in cardiac surgical patients might offer potential therapeutic targets for prophylactic perioperative ablation strategies. METHODS ANDEntities:
Keywords: Cardiac surgery; Cardiac surgical critical care; New-onset atrial fibrillation; Non-invasive cardiac mapping
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35438261 PMCID: PMC9288739 DOI: 10.1002/ehf2.13902
Source DB: PubMed Journal: ESC Heart Fail ISSN: 2055-5822
Figure 1Anterior (left) and posterior (right) view of the left atrium defined as Regions 1–3 and 6.
Secondary outcome measures
| Secondary outcomes | All patients | NOAF cohort only |
|---|---|---|
| Incidence of NOAF | X | |
| Hospital LOS (days) | X | |
| Hospital‐free days (30 days, 90 days, 1, 3, and 5 years of follow‐up) | X | |
| ICU LOS (h) | X | |
| Ventilator days | X | |
| Ventilator‐free days at 28 days | X | |
| Overall mortality (hospital discharge, 90 days, 1, 3, and 5 years of follow‐up) | X | |
| Modified Rankin Scale (hospital discharge, 90 days, 1, 3, and 5 years of follow‐up) | X | |
| Prevalence of AF (hospital discharge, 90 days, 1, 3, and 5 years of follow‐up) | X | |
| Adverse events (hospital discharge, 90 days, 1, 3, and 5 years of follow‐up) | X | |
| Myocardial infarction (hospital discharge, 90 days, 1, 3, and 5 years of follow‐up) | X | |
| ICD or pacemaker implantation (hospital discharge, 30 days, 90 days, 1, 3, and 5 years of follow‐up) | X | |
| Time to first extubation (h) | X | |
| Incidence of stroke or TIA (hospital discharge, 90 days, 1, 3, and 5 years of follow‐up) | X | |
| Time from ICU admission to NOAF onset (h) | X | |
| Duration of NOAF (h) | X | |
| ECV energy (J) for successful conversion to SR | X | |
| Number of ECVs until successful conversion to SR | X | |
| ECV successful | X |
AF, atrial fibrillation; ECV, electrical cardioversion; ICD, implantable cardioverter defibrillator; ICU, intensive care unit; LOS, length of stay; NOAF, new‐onset atrial fibrillation; SR, sinus rhythm; TIA, transient ischaemic attack.
Overview of the baseline data collected according to time point
| Preoperative parameters/hospital admission ( | Surgery ( | Post‐operative ( | Discharge ( | Follow‐up ( | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline characteristics | X | ||||
| Neurologic assessment | X | X | X | ||
| Laboratory workup | X | X | X | ||
| Cardiovascular medication | X | X | X | ||
| 12‐channel ECG | X | X | X | X | |
| Echocardiography (TTE or TEE) | X | X | X | X | |
| EuroSCORE II | X | ||||
| CHA2DS2‐VASc score | X | ||||
| Index cardiac surgery | X | ||||
| Surgical access | X | ||||
| Atriotomy (left or right) | X | ||||
| Duration of surgery | X | ||||
| Aortic cross‐clamp time | X | ||||
| Cardiopulmonary bypass type and time | X | ||||
| Cannulation | X | ||||
| Cardioplegia | X | ||||
| Lowest intraoperative body temperature (°C) | X | ||||
| Total amount of ketamine for general anaesthesia | X | ||||
| Total amount of opioids | X | X | |||
| Daily opioid consumption | X | ||||
| Perioperative Swan‐Ganz catheter implantation | X | ||||
| Fluid balance | X | X | |||
| Atrial cardiac pacing | X | ||||
| Localization of central venous catheter tip | X | ||||
| Vasoactive agents | X | X | |||
| Peak glucose level | X | ||||
| Mean daily glucose level | X | ||||
| Peak pain score (CPOT or NRS) | X | ||||
| Mean daily pain score (CPOT or NRS) | X | ||||
| Transfused blood products | X | X | |||
| Coagulation factors given | X | X |
CPOT, Critical Care Pain Observation Tool; ECG, electrocardiogram; EuroSCORE II, European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation; NRS, numeric rating scale; TEE, transoesophageal echocardiography; TTE, transthoracic echocardiography.
Figure 2(A) Timeline from hospital admission to follow‐up. (B) Study procedure. CT, computed tomography; ICU, intensive care unit; NOAF, new‐onset atrial fibrillation.
Figure 3Non‐invasive mapping procedure. NOAF, new‐onset atrial fibrillation.
Precision‐based sample size calculation to determine the number of participants needed to achieve a certain confidence width
| Prevalence | Sensitivity | Number of patients need to achieve | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CI width 0.1 | CI width 0.15 | CI width 0.2 | ||
| 0.6 | 0.70 | 533 | 234 | 130 |
| 0.75 | 476 | 210 | 116 | |
| 0.80 | 407 | 180 | 100 | |
| 0.85 | 327 | 145 | 81 | |
| 0.90 | 235 | 107 | 61 | |
| 0.95 | 139 | 68 | 42 | |
| 0.7 | 0.70 | 457 | 201 | 111 |
| 0.75 | 408 | 180 | 100 | |
| 0.80 | 349 | 154 | 86 | |
| 0.85 | 280 | 124 | 70 | |
| 0.90 | 202 | 92 | 53 | |
| 0.95 | 119 | 58 | 36 | |
| 0.8 | 0.70 | 400 | 176 | 97 |
| 0.75 | 357 | 157 | 87 | |
| 0.80 | 306 | 135 | 75 | |
| 0.85 | 245 | 109 | 61 | |
| 0.90 | 177 | 80 | 46 | |
| 0.95 | 104 | 51 | 32 | |
| 0.9 | 0.70 | 356 | 156 | 87 |
| 0.75 | 318 | 140 | 78 | |
| 0.80 | 272 | 120 | 67 | |
| 0.85 | 218 | 97 | 54 | |
| 0.90 | 157 | 71 | 41 | |
| 0.95 | 93 | 46 | 28 | |
CI, confidence interval.
Reading example 1: If the prevalence of the pulmonary vein causing atrial fibrillation is 0.6 and sensitivity is 0.9, 107 patients are needed to achieve a 95% confidence interval (CI) as narrow as 0.8 to 0.95, hence a CI of width 0.15.
Reading example 2: If the prevalence of the pulmonary vein causing atrial fibrillation is 0.9 and sensitivity is 0.9, 71 patients are needed to achieve the same CI.