奎尼丁与胺碘酮分别联合电复律治疗慢性房颤的临床疗效

心房颤动 (简称房颤 )可使中风发生率较窦律时增高5～ 7倍。恢复并维持窦律是房颤治疗的理想目标。奎尼丁和胺碘酮是目前慢性房颤电复律前后维持治疗的常用药物。本文比较两药对慢性房颤电复律的影响及维持窦性心律的短期疗效和安全性。1　资料与方法1.1　资料 :本院住院拟行电复律的慢性房颤患者 5 3例 ,分成两组 :奎尼丁组 2 0例 ,男 7例 ,女 13例 ,平均年龄48.3± 8.1岁 ,风湿性心脏病 (风心病 ) 12例 (其中瓣膜置换术或成形术后者 6例 ) ,其他 8例 (包括高血压性心脏病 ,特发性房颤 ,老年退行性心脏病 ,扩张型心肌病 ,冠心病及心肌炎后…     

心脏瓣膜置换术后持续性心房颤动的电复律

目的探讨心脏瓣膜置换术后持续性心房颤动(简称房颤)电复律的成功率和安全性。方法对瓣膜置换术后病程长、左房增大(≥50mm)的持续性房颤患者135例行同步直流电复律治疗。电复律之前常规抗凝,加用厄贝沙坦和胺碘酮,积极处理原发心脏疾病。复律成功后继续服用厄贝沙坦和胺碘酮,3个月后停止。随访至电复律后12个月。结果135例,6例(4.4%)加用药物后自行转复。126例电击成功(97.7%)。3例(2.3%)未能转复。132例复律成功者12个月后123例维持窦性心律(93.2%),9例复发;复律后3,12个月左房内径较复律前缩小(P<0.05),左室射血分数增加(P<0.05)。结论对于瓣膜置换术后病程长、左房增大(≥50mm)的持续性房颤患者,应尝试给予转复的机会,在经过充分准备和抗心律失常药物协同应用下,其电复律成功率高,窦性心律维持时间长,并发症少。     

胺碘酮与普罗帕酮转复阵发性房颤与维持窦律疗效评价

目的观察胺碘酮与普罗帕酮对阵发性房颤的疗效。方法选择40例阵发性房颤患者随机分为胺碘酮组（20例）与普罗帕酮组（20例）．分别给予胺碘酮与普罗帕酮,在静脉注射过程中．转为窦性心律后停用。结果普罗帕酮组房颤转复率为75％．胺碘酮组为40％,两组比较差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。复律时间普罗帕酮组短于胺碘酮组（P〈0．01）。对血压的影响,两组无统计学意义。对Q—T间期的影响,胺碘酮组明显高于普罗帕酮组（P〈0．05）。复律后窦律的维持两组均呈下降趋势。但随访1年胺碘酮组对于窦律的维持率高于普罗帕酮组（P〈0．05）。结论普罗帕酮对阵发性房颤的转复率高于胺碘酮,而对于阵发性房颤复律后窦律维持胺碘酮高于普罗帕酮,但胺碘酮组对Q—T间期的影响较大。     

血浆B型利钠态基线水平对房颤药物复律的预测价值

【】：目的：通过调查房颤急性发作患者血浆B型利钠肽(brain natriuretiepeptid,BNP)基线水平,探讨BNP基线水平对房颤药物复律的意义。方法：收集2012年01月至2014年12月入住江苏省南京市中医院城南分院内科病区的房颤发作＜48小时患者共60例,所有患者均无临床心力衰竭症状,入院时测定基线BNP水平。所有患者均予静脉胺碘酮转复及口服胺碘酮维持窦性心律,平均随访3个月,所有患者至少每月随访1次,做1次24 h 动态心电图,若发作房颤均被要求记录发作持续的时间和次数。首先按照静脉使用胺碘酮转复情况分为两组：转复组和失败组;对于成功转复的,根据随访期间心律,分为复律组和复发组。结果：所有患者中静脉应用胺碘酮成功转复的49例 (81.67%),失败的11例(18.33%),成功组血浆基线BNP水平显著低于失败组(P < 0.001);3个月随访过程中49例成功转复组中有42例维持窦律(85.7%),7例复发(14.3%),复律组血浆基线BNP水平低于复发组(P < 0.01);Logistic多元回归模型表示BNP值可以作为一个独立的预测复律成功的标志。结论：发作< 48小时有症状的房颤患者,基线BNP水平与复律成功与否相关,BNP水平高,复律成功比例低,至于BNP水平作为复律成功的cut-off值还需要进一步的研究来验证。     

厄贝沙坦联合胺碘酮对风湿性心脏病人瓣膜置换术后维持窦律的作用

目的 评价厄贝沙坦和胺碘酮联用在风湿性心脏病持续性房颤患者复律后的窦律维持作用.方法 风湿性心脏病瓣膜置换术后持续性房颤患者116例随机分为胺碘酮组(55例)和厄贝沙坦 胺碘酮组(61例).两组均在治疗2周后行电复律术,转为窦性心律后继续分别服用.试验随访时间为18月.比较治疗后的窦性心律维持率和治疗前及治疗后6、12、18月左心房内径. 结果胺碘酮组左心房内径在治疗12月后显著大于胺碘酮 厄贝沙坦组,P＜0.05.厄贝沙坦 胺碘酮组窦律维持率高于胺碘酮组,在治疗12月时有显著差异. 结论厄贝沙坦联合胺碘酮在风湿性心脏病持续性房颤复律后维持窦性心律的疗效优于单用胺碘酮,并能延缓左房扩大,防止房颤复发.     

C反应蛋白对心房颤动药物复律后复发的远期预测价值

目的研究基线C反应蛋白(CRP)水平与心房颤动(简称房颤)药物复律后远期复发之间的关系。方法 71例持续性房颤患者使用胺碘酮复律,并且接受胺碘酮维持窦性节律的治疗,复律成功43例。根据基线CRP水平将复律成功的43例分为2组(0~4 mg/L组、≥4 mg/L组)。随访观察3年后,了解基线CRP水平与房颤复发间的关系。结果随访期内,有32(74.7%)例房颤复发。CRP 0~4 mg/L组,有12(12/21,57.1%)例房颤复发,CRP水平≥4 mg/L组有20例(20/22,90.9%)房颤复发,两组比较差异有显著性(P0.05)。Cox相关分析表明CRP基线水平与房颤复发相关(风险比6.09;95%可信区间3.15~12.60)。结论在预测房颤药物复律后房颤复发上,基线CRP水平可能有预测价值。     

厄贝沙坦联合胺碘酮对风湿性心脏病人瓣膜置换术后维持窦律的作用

目的评价厄贝沙坦和胺碘酮联用在风湿性心脏病持续性房颤患者复律后的窦律维持作用。方法风湿性心脏病瓣膜置换术后持续性房颤患者116例随机分为胺碘酮组(55例)和厄贝沙坦+胺碘酮组(61例)。两组均在治疗2周后行电复律术,转为窦性心律后继续分别服用。试验随访时间为18月。比较治疗后的窦性心律维持率和治疗前及治疗后6、12、18月左心房内径。结果胺碘酮组左心房内径在治疗12月后显著大于胺碘酮+厄贝沙坦组,P<0.05。厄贝沙坦+胺碘酮组窦律维持率高于胺碘酮组,在治疗12月时有显著差异。结论厄贝沙坦联合胺碘酮在风湿性心脏病持续性房颤复律后维持窦性心律的疗效优于单用胺碘酮,并能延缓左房扩大,防止房颤复发。     

心脏瓣膜置换术后持续性心房颤动的电复律

目的探讨心脏瓣膜置换术后持续性心房颤动（简称房颤）电复律的成功率和安全性。方法对瓣膜置换术后病程长、左房增大（≥50mm）的持续性房颤患者135例行同步直流电复律治疗。电复律之前常规抗凝，加用厄贝沙坦和胺碘酮，积极处理原发心脏疾病。复律成功后继续服用厄贝沙坦和胺碘酮，3个月后停止。随访至电复律后12个月。结果135例，6例（4．4％）加用药物后自行转复。126例电击成功（97．7％）。3例（2．3％）未能转复。132例复律成功苦12个月后123例维持窦性心律（93．2％），9例复发；复律后3，12个月左房内径较复律前缩小（P〈0．05），左室射血分数增加（P〈0．05）。结论对于瓣膜置换术后病程长、左房增大（≥50mm）的持续性房颤患者，应尝试给予转复的机会，在经过充分准备和抗心律失常药物协同应用下，其电复律成功率高，窦性心律维持时间长，并发症少。     

奎尼丁和胺碘酮对慢性心房颤动电复律的近期疗效

奎尼丁和胺碘酮是目前慢性心房颤动 (房颤 )电复律前、后维持治疗的两种常用药物。文献报道不同抗心律失常药物对除颤阈值有不同影响[1] 。本组比较了两药对慢性心房颤动电复律的影响及维持窦性心律的近期疗效和安全性。一、资料与方法1 对象 :回顾性分析既往无复律史 ,在我院住院首次拟行电复律的慢性房颤患者 15 8例 ,男 70例 ,女 88例 ,年龄19～ 6 5 (42 9± 9 5 )岁。基础病因 :慢性风湿性心脏病 (风心病 ) 147例 (瓣膜置换术或成形术后者 111例 ,占 76 % ) ,其他11例 (冠心病 2例 ,肥厚型心肌病 2例 ,非风湿性瓣膜病 2例 ,特发性房颤 …     

厄贝沙坦与胺碘酮联合对风湿性心脏病持续性心房颤动转复患者的窦性心律维持作用

目的 研究风湿性心脏病持续性心房颤动(房颤)应用厄贝沙坦联合胺碘酮的窦性心律(窦律)维持作用及复发的危险因素.方法 选择住院准备房颤复律且符合入选标准风湿性心脏病(风心病)瓣膜置换术后持续性房颤患者63例.随机分为对照组(31例)和试验组(32例).对照组给予胺碘酮,试验组用胺碘酮+厄贝沙坦.入选患者转复为窦律后即为试验起始时间,试验终点为转复后12个月.终点事件:症状或无症状房颤首次复发.结果 试验组窦律维持率显著高于对照组(68.7%与41.9%,P＜0.05).治疗12个月后,试验组左心房内径(LAD)显著小于对照组[(48.6±4.6)mm与(51.5±4.2)mm,P＜0.05].风心病持续性房颤复发与LAD(OR 1.242)和是否使用厄贝沙坦(OR 0.226)有关.结论 LAD是风心病持续性房颤复发的危险因素.厄贝沙坦联合胺碘酮在风心病持续性房颤复律后维持窦律的疗效优于单用胺碘酮,并能延缓左心房扩大,防止房颤复发.     

Comparison of acute and long-term effects of single-dose amiodarone and verapamil for the treatment of immediate recurrences of atrial fibrillation after transthoracic cardioversion.

AIMS: Amiodarone and verapamil have been employed to treat immediate recurrences of AF (IRAF) after cardioversion. This study compares the efficacy of these agents for the treatment of IRAF. METHODS AND RESULTS: One hundred and eighty-five patients underwent transthoracic cardioversion (CV) for AF. AF recurred within 10 min in 20 patients (10.8%). These patients were randomized to verapamil (seven patients), or amiodarone (13 patients). After administration of verapamil and repeat CV, five patients (71%) experienced IRAF, compared with seven patients (54%) receiving amiodarone (P = 0.4). Including the results after crossover, IRAF occurred in 8/10 patients (80%) who received verapamil, compared with 7/15 patients (47%) who received amiodarone (P = 0.1). The combination of these agents prevented IRAF in 10/20 patients (50%). After a follow-up of 319+/-189 days, 42% of the IRAF patients treated with verapamil and/or amiodarone remained in sinus rhythm, which did not differ from patients without IRAF (53%, P = 0.7). CONCLUSIONS: IRAF occurs in 10% of patients undergoing CV. Amiodarone and verapamil are effective in preventing IRAF and result in a sinus rhythm maintenance rate of 50%. Since there is no difference in the long-term maintenance of sinus rhythm between patients with and without IRAF, attempts to restore sinus rhythm after pharmacological pretreatment are justified.     

A randomized comparison of external and internal cardioversion of chronic atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND. Delivery of shocks within the right atrium has been reported to be more effective than conventional external shocks in converting atrial fibrillation (AF), but these two cardioversion techniques have never been compared prospectively. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacies of external and internal cardioversion in patients with chronic AF unresponsive to prior attempts at electrical and/or pharmacological cardioversion. Low-dose amiodarone was used in all patients after cardioversion to suppress recurrences of AF. METHODS AND RESULTS. One hundred twelve patients with AF of at least 1 month in duration were randomly assigned to undergo external cardioversion with 300-360-J shocks or internal cardioversion with 200-300-J shocks delivered through a standard electrode catheter within the right atrium. The patients were treated with amiodarone (200 mg/day 5-7 days/week) for 1 month before electrical cardioversion and afterward if the cardioversion was successful. The patients were evaluated at regular intervals during 1 year of follow-up. The efficacy of internal cardioversion was significantly greater than that of external cardioversion (91% versus 67%, p = 0.002). The only variable that was associated with the outcome of cardioversion was body weight. Among patients in whom sinus rhythm was restored, AF recurred as often after internal and external cardioversion; at 1 year of follow-up, 37% of patients in whom external or internal cardioversion had been effective were still in sinus rhythm. Patients who had undergone an attempt at electrical cardioversion before entry into this study were less likely to remain in sinus rhythm after cardioversion. The only complications of cardioversion were one instance of cerebral thromboembolism after external cardioversion and one instance of transient pulmonary edema after internal cardioversion. Therapy with amiodarone was discontinued because of an adverse drug effect in only three patients. CONCLUSIONS. Internal cardioversion is more effective than external cardioversion in restoring sinus rhythm and is as safe as external cardioversion in patients with chronic AF. The recurrence rate of AF is the same after both types of cardioversion. If conventional electrical cardioversion is ineffective, internal cardioversion should be attempted. The combination of low-dose amiodarone and external or internal cardioversion may result in maintaining sinus rhythm long-term in patients with refractory AF.     

Contemporary real life cardioversion of atrial fibrillation: Results from the multinational RHYTHM-AF study

Aims

Electrical and pharmacological cardioversion (ECV, PCV) are important treatment options for symptomatic patients with recent onset atrial fibrillation (AF). RHYTHM-AF is an international registry of present-day cardioversion providing information that is not currently available on country differences and acute and long-term arrhythmia outcomes of ECV and PCV.

Methods and results

3940 patients were enrolled, of whom 75% underwent CV. All patients were followed for 2 months. There were large variations concerning mode of CV used, ECV being heterogeneous. A choice of PCV drug depended on the clinical patient profile. Sinus rhythm was restored in 89.7% of patients by ECV and in 69.1% after PCV. Among patients not undergoing CV during admission, 34% spontaneously converted to sinus rhythm within 24 h. ECV was most successful in patients pretreated with antiarrhythmic drugs (mostly amiodarone). PCV was enhanced by class Ic antiarrhythmic drugs; conversion rate on amiodarone was similar to that seen with rate control drugs. Female patients and those with paroxysmal and first detected AF as well as those without previous ECV responded well to PCV. The median duration of hospital stay was 16.2 and 24.0 h for ECV and PCV patients, respectively. There were very few CV-related complications regardless of mode of CV. Chronic maintenance of sinus rhythm was enhanced in patients on chronic antiarrhythmic drugs, beta-blockers or inhibitors of the renin–angiotensin system.

Conclusions

Mode of CV varied significantly, but both PCV and ECV were safe and effective. Class Ic drugs were most effective conversion drugs, but amiodarone is used most frequently despite providing merely rate control rather than shorten time to conversion.     

Comparison of amiodarone and quinidine in the conversion to sinusal rhythm of atrial fibrillation of recent onset

The effectiveness of amiodarone and quinidine in converting atrial fibrillation of recent onset (less than three weeks) to sinus rhythm was compared in a randomized, open-label study. Patients with signs of heart failure determining a NYHA class 3 or 4, acute myocardial infarction, unstable angina pectoris, sick sinus syndrome, Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome, conduction disturbances, dysthyroidism, or undergoing concomitant therapy with antiarrhythmic drugs, were excluded from the study. Sixty-eight consecutive patients were randomized to receive amiodarone (group A) or quinidine (group B). Group A was treated with amiodarone intravenously as a bolus of 5 mg/Kg over a 20 min period followed by a 15 mg/Kg infusion during the first 24 hours and then orally at a dose of 0.4 g every 6 hours. Group B was treated with quinidine sulphate orally at a dose of 0.2 g every 6 hours during the first day; 0.4 g every 6 hours the second day and 0.6 g every 6 hours during the third day of therapy. Quinidine was preceded by rapid intravenous digitalization depending on the patient's clinical status so as to obtain a ventricular rate of about 100 beats/min, with subsequent oral digitalis administration in maintenance doses. Both treatments were continued until conversion or for a maximum of three days. If the sinus rhythm was not restored, patients underwent electrical cardioversion. Drug efficacy was assessed on the basis of conversion to sinus rhythm. Six patients converted to sinus rhythm with intravenous digitalization alone and were excluded from the comparison between the two groups.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Amiodarone after unsuccessful direct-current cardioversion of persistent atrial fibrillation

AIM: To assess the safety and efficacy of amiodarone used after unsuccessful direct current (DC) cardioversion of persistent atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS: The study group comprised 67 patients (F/M 26/41; mean age 61.3+/-11.2 years) after unsuccessful DC cardioversion (DCC) of persistent AF (mean arrhythmia duration 212.6+/-135.2 days) in whom another attempt of DCC was intended. Repeat DC cardioversion was performed after loading with oral amiodarone, for a period necessary to achieve a cumulative dose of up to 12.0-16.0 g. Pretreatment was an outpatient procedure. After successful DC cardioversion all study subjects received a maintenance dose of amiodarone, 100-200 mg daily, aimed at preventing AF. The follow-up period was 12 months. RESULTS: Spontaneous conversion to sinus rhythm (SR) during amiodarone pretreatment was observed in 13 pts (19.2%). DCC was performed in 54 pts and SR was restored in 41 of the study pts (76%). Complications occurred in 3 pts, including 1 case of apparent hyperthyroidism and 2 cases of decreased TSH level, and required amiodarone withdrawal. After 12 months, 72.2% of pts maintained SR on low dose (179.2+/-42.1 mg/day) amiodarone. Spontaneous conversion to SR during amiodarone loading was significantly related to long-term SR maintenance after successful DC cardioversion (p<0.013; RR 2.01; 95% CI 1.34-3.03). CONCLUSION: Pretreatment with amiodarone and repeat DC cardioversion results in sinus rhythm restoration in about 80.6% of pts with persistent AF after an initial unsuccessful attempt. Direct-current cardioversion can be performed safely taking standard precautions for patients receiving amiodarone. At 12 months after successful repeated DC cardioversion, more than 72.2% of pts on low-dose amiodarone maintain SR.     

Use of enalapril to facilitate sinus rhythm maintenance after external cardioversion of long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation. Results of a prospective and controlled study.

AIMS: This study aimed to assess whether enalapril could improve cardioversion outcome and facilitate sinus rhythm maintenance after conversion of chronic atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with chronic AF for more than 3 months were assigned to receive either amiodarone (200mg orally 3 times a day; group I: n=75) or the same dosage of amiodarone plus enalapril (10mg twice a day; group II: n=70) 4 weeks before scheduled external cardioversion. The end-point was the time to first recurrence of AF. In 125 patients (86.2%), AF was converted to sinus rhythm. Group II had a trend to a trend to a lower rate of immediate recurrence of AF than group I did (4.3% vs 14.7%, P=0.067). Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated a higher probability of group II remaining in sinus rhythm at 4 weeks (84.3% vs 61.3%, P=0.002) and at the median follow-up period of 270 days (74.3% vs 57.3%, P=0.021) than in group II. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of enalapril to amiodarone decreased the rate of immediate and subacute arrhythmia recurrences and facilitated subsequent long-term maintenance of sinus rhythm after cardioversion of persistent AF.     

Restoring Sinus Rhythm in Atrial Fibrillation: Electrical or Pharmacological Cardioversion

Restoration of sinus rhythm represents a desirable endpoint in patients with persistent (nonselfterminating) episode of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF) and in selected patients with chronic AF. The decision whether to cardiovert AF pharmacologically or electrically is unresolved. Pharmacological cardioversion with oral quinidine first used to terminate recent onset AF is no longer used in Europe because its safety has been questioned. Other oral antiarrhythmic agents were used orally in this indication including procaînamide, disopyramide, and oral amiodarone. More recently, oral flecaînide and oral propafenone have been used in recent onset AF. Success rates ranging between 67% and 95% were reported in placebo-controlled studies. Pharmacological cardioversion can also routinely be obtained in hospital practice using intravenous injection of an antiarrhythmic agent. Intravenous digoxin, although commonly used, has shown in controlled studies to be no better than placebo. Intravenous amiodarone in open studies was associated with high success rates. Intravenous flecaînide, intravenous propafenone, and intravenous cibenzoline have been reported to be sucessful in recent onset AF. It is important to keep in mind that pharmacological cardioversion carries the risk of flutter with 1:1 conduction and ventricular proarrhythmia. The safety of pharmacological cardioversion using oral agents should be assessed in a hospital environment before allowing outpatient use. External (transthoracic) electrical cardioversion remains the technique of choice for restoring sinus rhythm in chronic AF. The success rates range from 65% to 90%. A technique of high energy electrical DC (200J or 300J) internal cardioversion has been shown to be useful in patients who failed external conversion. Recently, a technique for low-energy (> 6J) cardioversion of AF using biphasic shocks, electrode catheters positioned in the right atrium (cathode), and the coronary sinus (anode), was found to restore sinus rhythm in 70%-88% of patients. Internal cardioversion is emerging as a therapeutic alternative in selected groups of AF patients, particularly in those who failed external cardioversion.     

口服奎尼丁转复心房颤动的临床分析

应用口服奎尼丁转复心房颤动（AF）393例次，评价其效果、安全性、血药浓度的意义及相关因素对转复的影响。奎尼了用量第1日每次0．2g，每2h1次，共5次。如未能转复逐日每次递增0．1g，至第3日仍未转复逐停药。有47例测了血药浓度。393例次AF中324例次（82．4％）转复成功，平均转复时间为13．7±5．1（2～42）h。高血压病、冠心病、心肌病及孤立性AF的转复率较风湿性心脏病者为高（93．8％、88．9％、88.9％、95.7％vs76.4％，P＜0．05）。AF持续时间＜6个月者转复率高于6～12及＞12个月者（88．2％vs69．2％、56．3％，P＜0．01）。左房内径＜50mm者转复率高于≥50mm者（89．7％vs72．0％，P＜0.05）。有效见药浓度为1．5～6．0ng／ml。未发现与奎尼丁有关的严重副作用。表明口服奎尼丁转复AF的成功率高，严重不良反应的发生率低，其仍不失为治疗AF的一种较好方法。     

Prognostic predictors of sinus rhythm control by amiodarone and electrical cardioversion in patients undergoing percutaneous transluminal mitral valvuloplasty for rheumatic atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Conversion to sinus rhythm (SR) is rarely attempted in patients with rheumatic atrial fibrillation (AF) because the length of AF duration and the dilation of left atrium (LA) make maintenance of SR difficult. In this study, predictors of the successful maintenance of SR with amiodarone and electrical cardioversion in rheumatic AF patients receiving percutaneous transluminal mitral valvuloplasty (PTMV) were identified. METHODS AND RESULTS: This study included 23 consecutive patients undergoing PTMV for rheumatic AF (6 men, 53+/-11 years; AF duration 25 +/-24 months; LA diameter 44+/-6 mm; mitral valve area (MV) 1.1+/-0.2 cm(2)). Electrical cardioversion was required for the successful conversion to SR in all patients regardless of whether they had received amiodarone (400 mg/day) 2 months before PTMV (n=8) or 2 months after (n=15). After cardioversion, all patients received amiodarone 200 mg/day. With a follow-up period of 35+/-8 months, 14 patients (61%) remained in SR. A greater reduction in LA size (-4+/-3 mm vs 1+/-1 mm; p=0.004) and an greater increase in MV area (0.8+/-0.4 cm(2) vs 0.5+/-0.2 cm(2); p=0.01) by PTMV, not AF duration, were found to be the independent predictors for patients with successful maintenance of SR as compared with patients with recurrence of AF. CONCLUSION: In rheumatic AF patients receiving PTMV, the successful maintenance of SR with amiodarone and electrical cardioversion can be predicted by the degree to which LA size is reduced and MV area is increased.     

Prediction of maintenance of sinus rhythm after electrical cardioversion of atrial fibrillation by non-deterministic modelling.

AIMS: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common rhythm disorder. Because of the high recurrence rate of AF after cardioversion and because of potential side effects of electrical cardioversion, it is clinically important to predict persistence of sinus rhythm after electrical cardioversion before it is attempted. The aim of our study was the development of a mathematical model by "genetic" programming (GP), a non-deterministic modelling technique, which would predict maintenance of sinus rhythm after electrical cardioversion of persistent AF. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Ninety-seven patients with persistent AF lasting more than 48h, undergoing the first attempt at transthoracic cardioversion were included in this prospective study. Persistence of AF before the cardioversion attempt, amiodarone treatment, left atrial dimension, mean, standard deviation and approximate entropy of ECG R-R intervals were collected. The data of 53 patients were randomly selected from the database and used for GP modelling; the other 44 data sets were used for model testing. RESULTS: In 23 patients sinus rhythm persisted at 3 months. In the other 21 patients sinus rhythm was not achieved or its duration was less than 3 months. The model developed by GP failed to predict maintenance of sinus rhythm at 3 months in one patient and in six patients falsely predicted maintenance of sinus rhythm. Positive and negative likelihood ratios of the model for testing data were 4.32 and 0.05, respectively. Using this model 15 of 21 (71.4%) cardioversions not resulting in sinus rhythm at 3 months would have been avoided, whereas 22 of 23 (95.6%) cardioversions resulting in sinus rhythm at 3 months would have been administered. CONCLUSION: This model developed by GP, including clinical data, ECG data from the time-domain and nonlinear dynamics can predict maintenance of sinus rhythm. Further research is needed to explore its utility in the present or an expanded form.