Factors predictive for delayed enhancement in cardiac resonance imaging in patients undergoing catheter ablation of premature ventricular complexes.
Cardiac scar
Catheter ablation
Delayed enhancement cardiac magnetic resonance imaging
Premature ventricular complexes
Risk stratification
Journal
Heart rhythm O2
ISSN: 2666-5018
Titre abrégé: Heart Rhythm O2
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101768511
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Feb 2021
Feb 2021
Historique:
entrez:
11
6
2021
pubmed:
12
6
2021
medline:
12
6
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Patients undergoing ablation of premature ventricular complexes (PVCs) can have cardiac scar. Risk factors for the presence of scar are not well defined. To determine the prevalence of scarring detected by delayed enhancement cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (DE-CMR) in patients undergoing ablation of PVCs, to create a risk score predictive of scar, and to explore correlations between the scoring system and long-term outcomes. DE-CMR imaging was performed in consecutive patients with frequent PVCs referred for ablation. The full sample was used to develop a prediction model for cardiac scar based on demographic and clinical characteristics, and internal validation of the prediction model was done using bootstrap samples. The study consisted of 333 patients (52% male, aged 53.2 ± 14.5 years, preablation ejection fraction 50.9% ± 12.2%, PVC burden 20.7 ± 13.14), of whom 112 (34%) had DE-CMR scarring. Multiple logistic regression analysis showed age (odds ratio [OR] 1.02 [1.01-1.04]/year, Cardiac scar was present in one-third of patients referred for PVC ablation. A weighted risk score based simply on patient age and preprocedural ejection fraction can help discriminate between patients at high and low risk for the presence of cardiac scar and worse arrhythmia outcomes.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Patients undergoing ablation of premature ventricular complexes (PVCs) can have cardiac scar. Risk factors for the presence of scar are not well defined.
OBJECTIVES
OBJECTIVE
To determine the prevalence of scarring detected by delayed enhancement cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (DE-CMR) in patients undergoing ablation of PVCs, to create a risk score predictive of scar, and to explore correlations between the scoring system and long-term outcomes.
METHODS
METHODS
DE-CMR imaging was performed in consecutive patients with frequent PVCs referred for ablation. The full sample was used to develop a prediction model for cardiac scar based on demographic and clinical characteristics, and internal validation of the prediction model was done using bootstrap samples.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The study consisted of 333 patients (52% male, aged 53.2 ± 14.5 years, preablation ejection fraction 50.9% ± 12.2%, PVC burden 20.7 ± 13.14), of whom 112 (34%) had DE-CMR scarring. Multiple logistic regression analysis showed age (odds ratio [OR] 1.02 [1.01-1.04]/year,
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Cardiac scar was present in one-third of patients referred for PVC ablation. A weighted risk score based simply on patient age and preprocedural ejection fraction can help discriminate between patients at high and low risk for the presence of cardiac scar and worse arrhythmia outcomes.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34113906
doi: 10.1016/j.hroo.2020.11.004
pii: S2666-5018(20)30148-3
pmc: PMC8183950
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
64-72Informations de copyright
© 2020 Heart Rhythm Society. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Références
Circulation. 1999 Nov 9;100(19):1992-2002
pubmed: 10556226
JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2019 Aug;5(8):920-931
pubmed: 31439293
Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2012 Apr;5(2):258-63
pubmed: 22407415
Europace. 2013 Jul;15(7):1034-41
pubmed: 23493411
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013 Dec 10;62(23):2205-14
pubmed: 23994399
Lancet Neurol. 2017 Jul;16(7):564-570
pubmed: 28653648
Circulation. 2008 Sep 2;118(10):1011-20
pubmed: 18725488
Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2014 Mar;7(2):250-258
pubmed: 24363358
Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol. 2016 Jan;21(1):49-59
pubmed: 26806840
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010 Oct 5;56(15):1235-43
pubmed: 20883930
Cardiol J. 2017;24(3):293-304
pubmed: 28353309
Heart Rhythm. 2020 Jan;17(1):e2-e154
pubmed: 31085023
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010 Sep 7;56(11):867-74
pubmed: 20688032
Heart Rhythm. 2017 Nov;14(11):1695-1701
pubmed: 28688990
Europace. 2018 May 1;20(5):801-807
pubmed: 28431009
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2016 Feb;27(2):183-9
pubmed: 26445386
Heart Rhythm. 2020 Mar;17(3):423-430
pubmed: 31580899
Heart Rhythm. 2010 Jul;7(7):865-9
pubmed: 20348027
Circulation. 2017 May 30;135(22):2106-2115
pubmed: 28351901
JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2013 Mar;6(3):392-406
pubmed: 23473115
Heart. 2019 Mar;105(5):378-383
pubmed: 30242139
World J Radiol. 2018 Sep 28;10(9):100-107
pubmed: 30310544
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006 Nov 21;48(10):1977-85
pubmed: 17112987
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2017 Nov;28(11):1316-1323
pubmed: 28791747
Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2011 Jun;27(5):705-14
pubmed: 21479846
Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2010 Jun;3(3):274-9
pubmed: 20400776
Radiology. 2001 Jan;218(1):215-23
pubmed: 11152805
Heart Rhythm. 2021 Jan;18(1):20-26
pubmed: 32721479
JAMA. 2015 Nov 10;314(18):1945-54
pubmed: 26547466
JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2019 Dec;5(12):1363-1383
pubmed: 31857035
JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2020 Jun;6(6):722-735
pubmed: 32553224
Heart Rhythm. 2011 Jan;8(1):38-45
pubmed: 20884379
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011 Sep 13;58(12):1271-9
pubmed: 21903062
Am J Cardiol. 2016 Oct 1;118(7):991-7
pubmed: 27553101
Heart Rhythm. 2007 Jul;4(7):863-7
pubmed: 17599667
Stat Med. 2004 May 30;23(10):1631-60
pubmed: 15122742