Transthoracic and transesophageal echocardiographic indices predictive of sinus rhythm maintenance after cardioversion of atrial fibrillation: an echocardiographic study during direct current shock.

摘要

BACKGROUND: Up to 57% of atrial fibrillation (AF) recurrences after cardioversion take place during the first 30 days following direct current shock (DCS) delivery. Previous echocardiographic studies on sinus rhythm (SR) maintenance after cardioversion have focused mainly on parameters recorded before DCS, while other studies have reported on the indices recorded soon after delivery of the shock. METHODS: Therefore, we investigated 18 patients with nonrheumatic AF, selected to undergo DCS, by both transthoracic (TTE) and transesophageal (TEE) echocardiography performed within 10 minutes before and after the electrical shock delivery. TTE was utilized for the evaluation of left atrium and left ventricle shape as well as for mitral Doppler flow sampling, while TEE was used to evaluate left atrial appendage (LAA) morphology and function, to score the LAA spontaneous echo contrast, and to evaluate the flow of left superior pulmonary vein; the transesophageal probe was left in situ during the electrical procedure. Thirty days after cardioversion, 10 (55%) patients maintained SR (Group 1) while 8 (45%) reverted to AF (Group 2). We compared the mean values of the parameters recorded in the two groups both before and after DCS. RESULTS: Although many parameters of pre- and postcardioversion analysis proved to be significantly different between the two groups, the most marked differences were exhibited by the following postcardioversion indices: Peak Doppler flow velocity of the end-diastolic mitral flow (30.10 +/- 5.24 vs. 20.50 +/- 6.32 cm/sec, P = 0.003); sum of peak velocities of the end-diastolic contraction (A) and relaxation (A(1)) of LAA (A + A(1) = 58.20 +/- 17.02 vs. 31.25 +/- 9.27 cm/sec, P = 0.001); duration of A + A(1) (162.70 +/- 27.01 vs. 133.75 +/- 5.31 msec, P = 0.002); and sum of durations of the early diastolic forward (E) and reverse (E(1)) flow of LAA (101.90 +/- 35.15 vs. 53.33 +/- 16.33 msec, P = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: Using a single echocardiographic examination during DCS and after induction of anesthesia, without further discomfort to patients, we were able to identify useful parameters for the prediction of future electrical activity of the heart before as well as soon after DCS. Postcardioversion indices, derived by both TTE and TEE, were even more predictive of SR maintenance after 1 month than precardioversion parameters.