Search

Background: Following left atrial appendage (LAA) electrical isolation, the decision on whether to continue oral anticoagulation after successful atrial fibrillation ablation is based on the study of its mechanical function on transesophageal echocardiography (TEE). In this cohort, LAA contraction is absent and the incorrect interpretation of emptying flow velocities can lead to unwanted clinical sequelae., Methods: One hundred and sixty consecutive TEE exams performed to evaluate the LAA mechanical function following its electrical isolation were reviewed by an experienced operator blinded to the original diagnosis of LAA dysfunction. The rate of diagnostic discrepancy in the assessment LAA dysfunction and its clinical implications were evaluated., Results: Diagnostic discrepancy with misclassification of the LAA mechanical function occurred 36% (58/160) of TEE exams. In most cases (57/58), such discrepancy was observed in the setting of an incorrect original diagnosis of a normal LAA mechanical function despite absent/reduced or inconsistent LAA contraction. This main source of this wrong diagnosis was the wrong interpretation of passive LAA flows (34/57; 60%), followed by failure to identify dissociated firing (15/57; 26%). In rare cases (8/57; 14%), velocities of surrounding structures were interpreted as LAA flow due to misplacement of the pulsed-wave Doppler sample volume. Following LAA isolation, the proportion of patients who experienced a cerebrovascular event while off oral anticoagulation due to the misclassification of their LAA mechanical function was 70% (7/10 [95% CI, 40%-89%])., Conclusions: Underdiagnosis of LAA mechanical dysfunction is common in TEEs performed following LAA electrical isolation, and it is associated with an increased risk of cerebrovascular events owing to oral anticoagulation discontinuation despite absent/reduced LAA contraction. Careful review of the TEE exam by an operator with specific expertise in LAA imaging and familiar with the functional implications of LAA isolation is necessary before interrupting oral anticoagulation in this cohort.

[Figure: see text].

Background: Pulmonary vein (PV) antrum isolation in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and atrial fibrillation (AF) has been reported to have satisfactory results at the mid- and short-term follow-up. We determined the outcomes at the long-term follow-up of PV antrum isolation in these patients., Methods and Results: We enrolled 43 patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and AF (28% paroxysmal AF). PV antrum isolation (paroxysmal AF) and posterior wall isolation with complex fractionated atrial electrogram ablation (persistent and longstanding persistent AF) were the end points at the time of the index procedure and for repeat procedures during the first year of follow-up. In case of recurrent arrhythmia >1 year, high-dose isoproterenol challenge was used to disclose non-PV trigger sites. During the first year, the success rate reached 91% (mean of 1.6 procedures). After a median follow-up of 42 months (range, 38-48 months), 49% of the patients remained free from AF/atrial tachycardia. All patients underwent an additional procedure. PV antrum and posterior wall remained isolated in 82% of the cases, and extra-PV triggers were documented in all patients and targeted for ablation. After a median follow-up of 15 months (range, 8-19 months) subsequent to the last procedure, 94% of the patients remained free from AF/atrial tachycardia off antiarrhythmic drugs., Conclusions: PV isolation in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy is feasible and safe, although is not effective in preventing late (≥1 year) AF recurrences in ≈50% of patients. Non-PV triggers seem to be responsible of late recurrences, which supports the appropriateness of a more extensive ablation beyond PV isolation to improve the long-term arrhythmia-free survival.