Predictive value of guideline-referred risk scores in estimating left atrial low voltage areas and recurrence of atrial fibrillation in repeat ablation procedures

Christian Georgi (Bernau bei Berlin)1, M. Bannehr (Bernau bei Berlin)1, M. C. Lochmann (Neuruppin)2, D. Reiners (Bernau bei Berlin)1, A. Haase-Fielitz (Bernau bei Berlin)1, M. Seifert (Bernau bei Berlin)1, C. Butter (Bernau bei Berlin)1

1Immanuel Klinikum Bernau Herzzentrum Brandenburg / Kardiologie Bernau bei Berlin, Deutschland; 2Medizinische Hochschule Brandenburg Kardiologie/Angiologie Neuruppin, Deutschland

 

Background: Despite advances in mapping and ablation techniques, atrial fibrillation (AF) recurrence remains a challenge after pulmonary vein isolation. Low voltage areas (LVA) in the left atrium are associated with higher recurrence rates after left atrial ablation. Risk scores for evaluating post-ablation recurrences are not well established, although a better patient selection for repeat procedures would be of great help in clinical practice.

 

Methods: This single-center study includes consecutive patients from the prospective Bernau ablation registry undergoing ultra-high-density (UHD) mapping and repeat ablation for AF/AT recurrence between 2016 and 2020. The potential of seven guideline mentioned risk scores (APPLE, DR-FLASH, MB-LATER, ATLAS, CAAP-AF, BASE-AF 2, ALARMEc) to predict (1) AF/AT recurrence beyond a three-months blanking period after repeat left atrial ablation (Re-PVI ± further LA ablation) and (2) the percentage of left atrial LVA in UHD mapping was investigated. LVA were defined as sites with a bipolar peak-to-peak voltage of <0.5 mV with an extent of >1cm². Optimal cutoff for sensitivity and specificity for LVA and AF/AT recurrence as endpoint was chosen using C statistics with receiver-operator characteristics (ROC). Further ROCs were performed to illustrate the predictive ability of the scores. Pearson correlation was used to test associations between variables.

 

Results: 160 patients (mean age 67.9 ± 9.1 years, 60.6% persistent AF, mean AF duration 4.6 ± 3.8 years) with complete left atrial UHD mappings (mean EGMs 9754 ± 5808) were included. Baseline characteristics are presented in table 1. Overall recurrence rate over a mean follow-up time of 16 ± 11 months was 55.6%. The predictive value of the investigated risk scores on AF/AT recurrence in our cohort was low (Figure 1), with the highest power for CAAP-AF (p = 0.015, AUC = 0.615) and DR-FLASH score (p = 0.040, AUC = 0.594), Fig. 2. With respect to left atrial LVA we found a better predictive power for the CAAP-AF (p < 0.001, AUC 0.702), APPLE (p < 0.001, AUC 0.687), DR-FLASH (p < 0.001, AUC 0.688), ATLAS (p = 0.005, AUC 0.634) and ALARMEc (p = 0.007, AUC 0.608) score to predict low voltage based on a calculated cut-off of 22% of total left atrial surface (Fig. 1).

 

Conclusion: The predictive value of guideline-referred risk scores in estimating AF/AT recurrence after repeat ablation is low and does not seem to be of relevant help in patient selection for further interventional treatment. Some scores demonstrate a fairly good prediction for the amount of left atrial LVA and therefore might help in choosing the right mapping and ablation regime beforehand.


Table 1

 

Overall

n = 160

No recurrence

n = 71

Recurrence

n = 89

P-value

Age

67.9 (9.1)

67.0 (9.2)

68.5 (9.1)

0.285

Sex male (%)

81 (50.6)

42 (59.2)

39 (43.8)

0.054

BMI [kg/m2]

28.5 ± 5.0

28.1 ± 5.2

28.9 ± 4.9

0.334

CHA2DS2VASc-Score

3 IQR 3

3 IQR 3

3 IQR 2

0.116

AF duration [years]

4.6 ± 3.8

5.2 ± 4.9

4.2 ± 2.5

0.115

Atrial fibrillation (%)

142 (88.8)

66 (92.9)

76 (85.4)

0.105

  paroxysmal

41 (25.6)

21 (29.6)

20 (22.5)

 

  persistend

97 (60.6)

45 (63.4)

52 (58.4)

 

Atrial tachycardia (%)

18 (11.3)

5 (7.0)

13 (14.6)

 

Previous ablations [n]

1.3 ± 0.7

1.3 ± 0.5

1.4 ± 0.9

0.277

LVEF [%]

57.2 ± 6.9

57.9 ± 6.1

56.6 ± 7.5

0.239

NT-proBNP [pg/ml]

933 ± 1,434

859 ± 1,485

994 ± 1,397

0.560

Low voltage (<0.5 mV) area [%]

30.6 ± 23.1

18.8 ± 17.7

40.0 ± 22.6

<0.001

EGM points [number]

9,754 ± 5,808

8,722 ± 5,643

10,578 ± 5,838

0.044


Diese Seite teilen