Disparity Between Two-Dimensional Echocardiographic and Electroanatomic Left and Right Atrial Volumes in Patients Undergoing Catheter Ablation for Long-Standing Persistent Atrial Fibrillation

Authors

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

Year of publication 2017
Type Article in Periodical
Magazine / Source Physiological research
MU Faculty or unit

Faculty of Medicine

Citation
Web http://www.biomed.cas.cz/physiolres/pdf/66/66_241.pdf
Doi http://dx.doi.org/10.33549/physiolres.933314
Keywords Long-standing atrial fibrillation; Echocardiography; Atrial volume; Electroanatomic mapping
Description Left atrial (LA) volume (LAV) is used for the selection of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) to rhythm control strategies. Calculation of LAV from the LA diameters and areas by two-dimensional (2D) echocardiography may result in significant error. Accuracy of atrial volume assessment has never been studied in patients with long-standing persistent AF (LSPAF) and significant atrial remodeling. This study investigated correlation and agreement between 2D echocardiographic (Simpson method) and electroanatomic (CARTO, Biosense Webster) left and right atrial (RA) volumes (LAV(ECHO) vs. LAV(CARTO) and RAV(ECHO) vs. RAV(CARTO)) in patients undergoing catheter ablation for LSPAF. The study enrolled 173 consecutive subjects (females: 21 %, age: 59 +/- 9 years). There was only modest correlation between LAVECHO (92 +/- 31 ml) and LAV(CARTO) (178 +/- 37 ml) (R= 0.57), and RAV(ECHO) (71 +/- 29 ml) and RAV(CARTO) (173 +/- 34 ml) (R= 0.42), respectively. LAV(ECHO) and RAV(ECHO) underestimated LAV(CARTO) and RAV(CARTO) with the absolute bias (+/- 1.96 standard deviation) of -85 (-148; -22) ml and -102 (-169; -35) ml, respectively, and with the relative bias of -48 (-75; -21) % and -59 (-88; -30) %, respectively (all P<0.000001 for their mutual difference). Significant confounders of this difference were not identified. In patients with LSPAF, 2D echocardiography significantly underestimated both LA and RA volumes as compared with electroanatomic reference. This disagreement was independent of clinical, echocardiographic and mapping characteristics.