Functional tricuspid regurgitation and efficacy of electrical cardioversion in patients with atrial fibrillation and atrial functional mitral regurgitation.

INTRODUCTION: Atrial functional mitral regurgitation (afMR) is common in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). The presence of functional tricuspid regurgitation (fTR), which arises as a secondary effect of afMR, has the potential to impact the effectiveness of procedures aimed at restoring normal heart rhythm. In this study, we sought to evaluate the efficacy of electrical cardioversion (CVE) in AF regarding the presence and degree of fTR in patients with afMR. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Retrospective analysis included 521 patients with persistent AF on optimal medical therapy undergoing CVE. 157 (30.1%) patients had afMR (characterized by left ventricle ejection fraction ≥ 50% and LA dilatation) and were divided into 2 groups: the group with fTR (107, 68.2%) and the group without fTR (50, 31.9%). RESULTS: Patients with afMR and fTR had a higher prevalence of metabolic syndrome (p = 0.02) and greater right atrial area (p < 0.01) compared to patients without fTR. The efficacy of CVE was lower in the group with fTR in comparison to patients with isolated afMR (82.2% vs. 94%; p = 0.048) and it was unrelated to the degree of fTR (p = 0.15) and RVSP (p = 0.56). The energy required for successful CVE was comparable regardless of the presence (p = 0.26) or severity of fTR (p = 0.94). CONCLUSIONS: The fTR frequently coexists with afMR and it significantly diminishes the effectiveness of CVE for treating AF. The degree of fTR does not appear to influence the efficacy of CVE.

Heart failure and the risk of left atrial thrombus formation in patients with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter.

AIMS: The aim of the study was to evaluate the prevalence of left atrial thrombus (LAT) on transoesophageal echocardiography (TOE) in patients with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter (AF/AFl) with reference to the presence of heart failure (HF) and its subtypes. METHODS AND RESULTS: The research is a sub-study of the multicentre, prospective, observational Left Atrial Thrombus on Transoesophageal Echocardiography (LATTEE) registry, which comprised 3109 consecutive patients with AF/AFl undergoing TOE prior to direct current cardioversion or catheter ablation. TOE parameters, including presence of LAT, were compared between patients with and without HF and across different subtypes of HF, including HF with preserved (HFpEF), mid-range (HFmrEF), and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). HF was diagnosed in 1336 patients (43%). HF patients had higher prevalence of LAT than non-HF patients (12.8% vs. 4.4%; P < 0.001). LAT presence increased with more advanced type of systolic dysfunction (HFpEF vs. HFmrEF vs. HFrEF: 7.4% vs. 10.5% vs. 20.3%; P < 0.001). Univariate analysis revealed that HFrEF (odds ratio [OR] 4.13; 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 3.13-5.46), but not HFmrEF or HFpEF, was associated with the presence of LAT. Multivariable logistic regression indicated that lower left ventricular ejection fraction (OR per 1%: 0.94; 95% CI 0.93-0.95) was an independent predictor of LAT formation. Receiver operator characteristic analysis showed LVEF ≤48% adequately predicted increased risk of LAT presence (area under the curve [AUC] 0.74; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: The diagnosis of HFrEF, but neither HFmrEF nor HFpEF, confers a considerable risk of LAT presence despite widespread utilization of adequate anticoagulation.

Efficacy of Electrical Cardioversion in Relation to Occurrence and Type of Functional Mitral Regurgitation in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation.

Background: Recent studies have changed the perception of rhythm control in the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF). Functional mitral regurgitation (fMR) can be both a cause and a consequence of AF and may influence rhythm restoration procedures. Materials and methods: A retrospective analysis included 182 consecutive patients with AF on optimal medical therapy (OMT) undergoing electrical cardioversion (CVE). Based on transthoracic echocardiography, the study group was divided into 20 (11%) patients without mitral regurgitation (MR) and 132 (82%) with fMR 77 (58%) with atrial fMR (afMR; left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) ≥ 50%, left atrial (LA) dilatation) and 55 (42%) and with ventricular fMR (vfMR; LVEF < 50%). Patients with severe and organic MR were excluded from the study. Results: vfMR patients had a greater incidence of kidney failure (p = 0.01) and coronary heart disease (p = 0.02); more frequent use of diuretics during hospitalization (p < 0.01); greater LA diameter and area (p < 0.01; p < 0.01) than afMR patients. CVE efficiency was high in all four groups (84−95%). The presence and type of fMR did not affect the efficacy of CVE (p = 0.2; p = 0.9) and did not require the use of more energy (p = 0.4; p = 0.8). The independent predictor of successful CVE was the amount of white blood cells (OR 0.74, p < 0.05). Conclusions: Efficacy of CVE is high among AF patients on OMT regardless of the incidence and type of fMR. Subclinical inflammation should be excluded before elective CVE because it may decrease its efficacy.