Literature DB >> 8706371

F-amplitude, left atrial appendage velocity, and thromboembolic risk in nonrheumatic atrial fibrillation. Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation Investigators.

J L Blackshear1, R E Safford, L A Pearce.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Reduced left atrial appendage velocity (LAAV) has been identified as a marker for thromboembolism in patients with atrial fibrillation. HYPOTHESIS: It was postulated that electrocardiographic (ECG) F-wave amplitude would correlate with LAAV, and inversely with the risk of thromboembolism in patients with atrial fibrillation.
METHODS: In all, 53 patients with nonrheumatic (NRAF) and 7 patients with rheumatic (RAF) atrial fibrillation underwent assessment of maximum LAAV, which was correlated to the maximum ECG F-wave voltage from lead V1 (F(max)). In 450 NRAF patients on neither aspirin nor warfarin, the relationship between F(max) and thromboembolic risk was assessed over an average follow-up of 1.3 years.
RESULTS: F(max) did not correlate with LAAV (r = 0.2, p = 0.07). Patients with intermittent atrial fibrillation (n = 123) had smaller F(max) amplitude than patients with constant atrial fibrillation (n = 327) (mean 0.73 vs. 0.88 mV-1, p = 0.001). F(max) amplitude was not related to a history of hypertension, systolic blood pressure, duration of NRAF, abnormal transthoracic echocardiographic left ventricular (LV) systolic function or left atrial (LA) diameter. There was a strong trend for increased LV mass being related to smaller F(max) amplitude after adjusting for body surface area (p = 0.06). F(max) amplitude was not correlated with risk of embolic events, including only those events presumed by a panel of case-blinded neurologists to be cardioembolic.
CONCLUSIONS: F(max) amplitude in NRAF is smaller in patients with intermittent versus constant AF. It does not correlate with LAAV, LA size, increased LV mass, or systolic dysfunction, hypertension, or risk of embolism. Therefore, F(max) amplitude may not be used as a surrogate for LAAV, or as a measure of thromboembolic risk in NRAF.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8706371     DOI: 10.1002/clc.4960190406

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Cardiol        ISSN: 0160-9289            Impact factor:   2.882


  4 in total

1.  Coarse fibrillatory waves in atrial fibrillation predict success of electrical cardioversion.

Authors:  Tian X Zhao; Claire A Martin; John P Cooper; Parag R Gajendragadkar
Journal:  Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol       Date:  2017-12-22       Impact factor: 1.468

2.  Fine versus coarse atrial fibrillation in rheumatic mitral stenosis: The impact of aging and the clinical significance.

Authors:  Leili Pourafkari; Aidin Baghbani-Oskouei; Naser Aslanabadi; Arezou Tajlil; Samad Ghaffari; Ali Mosavi Sadigh; Safa Savadi-Oskouei; Elgar Enamzadeh; Raziyeh Parizad; Nader D Nader
Journal:  Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol       Date:  2018-03-05       Impact factor: 1.468

3.  Clinical value of fibrillatory wave amplitude on surface ECG in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation.

Authors:  Isabelle Nault; Nicolas Lellouche; Seiichiro Matsuo; Sébastien Knecht; Matthew Wright; Kang-Teng Lim; Frederic Sacher; Pyotr Platonov; Antoine Deplagne; Pierre Bordachar; Nicolas Derval; Mark D O'Neill; George J Klein; Mélèze Hocini; Pierre Jaïs; Jacques Clémenty; Michel Haïssaguerre
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2009-04-30       Impact factor: 1.900

4.  Relationship between coarse F waves and thromboembolic events in patients with permanent atrial fibrillation.

Authors:  Yahya Kemal İçen; Hasan Koca; Hilmi Erdem Sümbül; Arafat Yıldırım; Fadime Koca; Abdullah Yıldırım; Mustafa Lutfullah Ardıc; Mükremin Coşkun; Mehmet Uğurlu; Mevlüt Koç
Journal:  J Arrhythm       Date:  2020-09-02
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.