RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 A Simple Score to Predict New-onset Atrial Fibrillation After Ablation of Typical Atrial Flutter
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2023.05.18.23290204
DO 10.1101/2023.05.18.23290204
A1 Zhoushan Gu
A1 Jincheng Jiao
A1 Xiangwei Ding
A1 Chao Zhu
A1 Mingfang Li
A1 Hongwu Chen
A1 Weizhu Ju
A1 Kai Gu
A1 Gang Yang
A1 Hailei Liu
A1 Pipin Kojodjojo
A1 Minglong Chen
YR 2023
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/05/25/2023.05.18.23290204.abstract
AB Background New-onset atrial fibrillation (NeAF) is common after cavotricuspid isthmus-dependent counterclockwise atrial flutter (CCW-AFL) ablation. This study aimed to investigate a simple predictive model of NeAF after CCW-AFL ablation.Methods and Results From January 2013 to December 2017, consecutive patients receiving CCW-AFL ablation were enrolled from three centers. Clinical, echocardiographic, and electrocardiographic data were collected and followed. Patients from two centers and another center were assigned into the derivation and validation cohorts, respectively. In the derivation cohort, logistic regression was performed to evaluate the ability of parameters to discriminate those with and without NeAF. A score system was developed and then validated. Two hundred seventy-one patients (mean 59.7±13.6 age; 205 male) were analyzed. During follow-up (73.0±6.5 months), 107 patients (39.5%) had NeAF. 190 and 81 patients were detected in the derivation and validation cohorts, respectively. Hypertension, age ≥70 years, left atrial diameter ≥42 mm, P wave duration ≥120 ms and the negative component of flutter wave in lead II ≥120 ms were selected as the final parameters. A weighted score was used to develop the HAD-AF score ranging from 0 to 9. In the derivation cohort, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 0.938 (95% CI 0.902-0.974), superior to those of currently used CHA2DS2-VASC (0.679, 95% CI 0.600-0.757) and HATCH scores (0.651, 95% CI 0.571-0.730) (P<0.001). Performance maintained in the validation cohort.Conclusions 39.5% of patients developed NeAF in 6 years after CCW-AFL ablation. HAD-AF score can reliably identify patients likely to develop NeAF after CCW-AFL ablation.What Is New?During a follow-up period of more than 6 years after CCW-AFL ablation, 107 of 271 (39.5%) patients developed NeAF.HAD-AF score, based on easily obtainable clinical, echocardiographic and electrocardiographic parameters, could better predict development of NeAF after CCW-AFL ablation (area under the receiver operating characteristics curve [AUC], 0.938), compared with currently used HATCH score (AUC, 0.651) and CHA2DS2-VASC score (AUC, 0.679) (P<0.001).What Are the Clinical Implications?In CCW-AFL patients with a HAD-AF score >4, close postoperative follow-up for earlier detection of AF should be recommended, or the option of concomitant AF ablation could be considered during the shared decision-making process.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementNone.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The Ethics Committees of the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Affiliated Hospital of Nantong University, and Jiangsu Taizhou People's Hospital.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesAll data referred to in the manuscript is available if needed.AADsantiarrhythmic drugsAFNIIamplitude of the negative component of flutter wave in lead IIAPNV1amplitude of negative component of the P wave in lead V1 under sinus rhythmCCW-AFLcounterclockwise atrial flutterDFNIIduration of the negative component of flutter wave in lead IIDPIIP wave duration in lead II under sinus rhythmDPNV1duration of negative component of the P wave in lead V1 under sinus rhythmLADleft atrial diameterLVEFleft ventricular ejection fractionNeAFnew-onset atrial fibrillation