U22 protocol as measure of symptomatic improvement after catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation.

INTRODUCTION: Left atrial catheter ablation is useful as symptomatic treatment in selected patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Evaluation requires measurement of arrhythmia-related symptoms. Many of the published protocols have drawbacks and have been used in AF only, with no possible comparison to other ablations that compete for the same resources. U22 is a published protocol that quantifies paroxysmal tachycardia symptoms through scales with 11 answer alternatives, translated into discrete numerical scales 0-10. It has been shown to reflect the clinical improvement after ablation of supraventricular tachycardia. Here we report the use of U22 in measuring improvement after catheter ablation for AF. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 105 patients underwent first-time ablation for AF and answered U22 and SF-36 forms at baseline and follow-up 304 (SD 121) days after ablation. Independently, the patients underwent a clinical follow-up. All decisions regarding medication and reablation were taken without knowledge of the symptom scores. Results. The U22 scores for well-being, arrhythmia as cause for impaired well-being, derived time-aspect score for arrhythmia, and discomfort during attack detected relevant improvements of symptoms after the ablation. U22 showed larger improvement in patients undergoing only one procedure than in patients who later underwent repeated interventions, thus reflecting the independent clinical decision for reablation. CONCLUSION: U22 quantifies the symptomatic improvement after AF ablation with adequate internal consistency and construct validity. U22 mirrors aspects of the arrhythmia symptomatology other than SF-36.

Symptomatic improvement after catheter ablation of supraventricular tachycardia measured by the arrhythmia-specific questionnaire U22.

INTRODUCTION: The main indication for ablation of supraventricular tachycardia is symptomatic relief. Generic measures of quality of life are not suitable for direct evaluation of arrhythmia-related symptoms, and a specific tool is needed. The questionnaire U22 quantifies symptoms associated with arrhythmic events. It uses discrete 0-10 scales for quantification of influence of arrhythmia on well-being, intensity of discomfort, type of dominant symptom, and a time aspect that summarizes duration and frequency of spells. We evaluated U22 in a well defined group of patients with paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia, undergoing an intervention with a distinct end-point and a high success rate. METHODS: Symptoms in patients with accessory pathway and atrioventricular nodal re-entrant tachycardia scheduled for ablation were measured with U22 and SF-36 on admission. The evaluation was repeated after 6 months. RESULTS: Altogether 58 patients successfully ablated in 2006-2008 completed the four forms (U22 and SF-36 at base-line and follow-up, 210 ± 35 days after ablation). The score for well-being (0-10; 10 being best) increased from 5.9 ± 2.6 to 7.9 ± 1.9 (P < 0.0005). The score for arrhythmia as cause for impairment in well-being (0-10; 10 being highest) decreased from 7.5 ± 2.8 to 2.0 ± 3.1 (P < 0.0005). The time aspect score (0-10) decreased from 4.7 ± 1.5 to 1.4 ± 1.8 (P < 0.0005). The two SF-36 summary measures PCS and MCS increased from 46.9 ± 9.4 to 48.4 ± 10.7 and from 44.9 ± 12.5 to 49.1 ± 9.9 (P = 0.04 and 0.002). CONCLUSION: After successful ablation of accessory pathway and atrioventricular nodal re-entrant tachycardia, the U22 protocol detected a relevant increase in arrhythmia-related well-being. Modest improvement in general well-being was detected by the SF-36 protocol.

U22, a protocol to quantify symptoms associated with supraventricular tachycardia.

BACKGROUND: The main indication for ablation of supraventricular tachyarrhythmias (SVTA) is symptomatic relief. Specific paroxysmal symptoms cannot be quantified with general measures of quality of life, such as with the SF-36 questionnaire. U22 is a new protocol which measures the effects of arrhythmia on well-being, the intensity of discomfort during an episode, the type and temporal characteristics of dominant symptoms, and the duration and frequency of episodes. Discrete 0-10 scales are used. Unlike SF-36, U22 can be used in individual patients. METHODS: U22 and SF-36 protocols were used in the symptomatic evaluation of 88 patients (mean age = 49.6 +/- 16.4 years; 43 men), who underwent catheter ablation of SVTA. RESULTS: The U22 scores (SD) for (a) well-being (10 being best), (b) effects of arrhythmia on well-being (10 being worst), and (c) discomfort during arrhythmia (10 being worst) were 5.6 (2.7), 7.5 (2.8), and 8.0 (2.4), respectively. For comparison, the physical and mental component summaries of SF-36 were 45.3 (11.0) and 45.2 (12.1), respectively, slightly lower than the expected normal of 50. The intensity of dominant symptom scored by U22 was 9.7 (1.2), 10 being worst. In 29% of patients > or =4 symptoms were equally dominant. Multiple dominant symptoms in U22 were associated with a low general well-being in SF-36. CONCLUSION: We found U22 useful to quantify symptoms associated with SVTA.