Multivariate Analysis of Correspondence between Left Atrial Volumes Assessed by Echocardiography and 3-Dimensional Electroanatomic Mapping in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation

Authors

HAVRANEK S. FIALA Martin BULAVA A. SKNOURIL L. DORDA M. BULKOVA V. FINGROVA Z. SOUCKOVA L. PALECEK T. SIMEK J. LINHART A. WICHTERLE D.

Year of publication 2016
Type Article in Periodical
Magazine / Source Plos one
MU Faculty or unit

Faculty of Medicine

Citation
Doi http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0152553
Field Cardiovascular diseases incl. cardiosurgery
Keywords Echocardiography; 3-Dimensional Electroanatomic Mapping; Atrial Fibrillation
Description Background Left atrial (LA) enlargement is a predictor of worse outcome after catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF). Widely used two-dimensional (2D)-echocardiography is inaccurate and underestimates real LA volume (LAV). We hypothesized that baseline clinical characteristics of patients can be used to adjust 2D-ECHO indices of LAV in order to minimize this disagreement. Methods The study enrolled 535 patients (59 +/- 9 years; 67% males; 43% paroxysmal AF) who underwent catheter ablation for AF in three specialized centers. We investigated multivariately the relationship between 2D-echocardiographic indices of LA size, specifically LA diameter in M-mode in the parasternal long-axis view (LAD), LAV assessed by the prolate-ellipsoid method (LAV(Ellipsoid)), LAV by the planimetric method (LAV(Planimetry)), and LAV derived from 3D-electroanatomic mapping (LAV(CARTO)). Results Cubed LAD of 106 +/- 45 ml, LAV(Ellipsoid) of 72 +/- 24 ml and LAV(Planimetry) of 88 +/- 30 ml correlated only modestly (r = 0.60, 0.69, and 0.53, respectively) with LAV(CARTO) of 137 +/- 46 ml, which was significantly underestimated with a bias (+/- 1.96 standard deviation) of -31 (-111; +49) ml, -64(-132; +2) ml, and -49(-125; +27) ml, respectively; p < 0.0001 for their mutual difference. LA enlargement itself, age, gender, type of AF, and the presence of structural heart disease were independent confounders of measurement error of 2D-echocardiographic LAV. Conclusion Accuracy and precision of all 2D-echocardiographic LAV indices are poor. Their agreement with true LAV can be significantly improved by multivariate adjustment to clinical characteristics of patients.