Skip to main content

Association of left atrial strain by cardiovascular magnetic resonance with recurrence of atrial fibrillation following catheter ablation

Abstract

Background

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a progressive condition, which is characterized by inflammation/fibrosis of left atrial (LA) wall, an increase in the LA size/volumes, and decrease in LA function. We sought to investigate the relationship of anatomical and functional parameters obtained by cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR), with AF recurrence in paroxysmal AF (pAF) patients after catheter ablation.

Methods

We studied 80 consecutive pAF patients referred for ablation, between January 2014 and December 2019, who underwent pre- and post-ablation CMR while in sinus rhythm. LA volumes were measured using the area–length method and included maximum, minimum, and pre-atrial-contraction volumes. CMR-derived LA reservoir strain (R), conduit strain (CD), and contractile strain (CT) were measured by computer assisted manual planimetry. We used a multivariate logistical regression to estimate the independent predictors of AF recurrence after ablation.

Results

Mean age was 58.6 ± 9.4 years, 75% men, mean CHA2DS2-VASc score was 1.7, 36% had prior cardioversion and 51% were taking antiarrhythmic drugs. Patients were followed for a median of 4 years (Q1–Q3 = 2.5–6.2 years). Of the 80 patients, 21 (26.3%) patients had AF recurrence after ablation. There were no significant differences between AF recurrence vs. no recurrence groups in age, gender, CHA2DS2-VASc score, or baseline comorbidities. At baseline, patients with AF recurrence compared to without recurrence had lower LV end systolic volume index (32 ± 7 vs 37 ± 11 mL/m2; p = 0.045) and lower CT (7.1 ± 4.6 vs 9.1 ± 3.7; p = 0.05). Post-ablation, patients with AF recurrence had higher LA minimum volume (68 ± 32 vs 55 ± 23; p = 0.05), right atrial volume index (62 ± 20 vs 52 ± 19 mL/m2; p = 0.04) and lower LA active ejection fraction (24 ± 8 vs 29 ± 11; p = 0.05), LA total ejection fraction (39 ± 14 vs 46 ± 12; p = 0.02), LA expansion index (73.6 ± 37.5 vs 94.7 ± 37.1; p = 0.03) and CT (6.2 ± 2.9 vs 7.3 ± 1.7; p = 0.04). Adjusting for clinical variables in the multivariate logistic regression model, post-ablation minimum LA volume (OR 1.09; CI 1.02–1.16), LA expansion index (OR 0.98; CI 0.96–0.99), and baseline R (OR 0.92; CI 0.85–0.99) were independently associated with AF recurrence.

Conclusion

Significant changes in LA volumes and strain parameters occur after AF ablation. CMR derived baseline R, post-ablation minimum LAV, and expansion index are independently associated with AF recurrence.

Background

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common arrhythmia and can have adverse consequences related to reduction in cardiac output and atrial appendage thrombus formation. Affected patients may also be at increased risk for mortality [1, 2]. AF is also a progressive condition that is associated with structural and electrical changes in the left atrium (LA). LA remodelling in AF patients is characterized by LA wall inflammation and fibrosis, an increase in the LA size/volumes, and decrease in LA function [3]. Dynamic changes in the LA volumes during ventricular systole, diastole and atrial contraction are represented as reservoir, conduit and booster/contractile function respectively. These LA phasic volumes are influenced by cardiac rhythm and most accurate measurements of LA volumes are performed when patients are in sinus rhythm [4]. These LA parameters can be measured by two dimensional echocardiography (2DE), three dimensional echocardiography (3DE), tissue Doppler imaging, cardiac computed tomography and cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) of which CMR is considered the gold standard [5,6,7,8].

For patients with AF in whom a rhythm control strategy is chosen, catheter ablation through pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) is a principal therapeutic intervention to reduce the frequency or eliminate episodes of AF. Some studies have reported that PVI leads to a positive change in LA anatomical and functional parameters which may correlate with AF recurrence [9,10,11]. CMR strain by tissue tracking is a novel, relatively simple and reproducible technique that is being investigated for assessment of atrial mechanics [5, 12,13,14,15]. Standardized strain parameters include LA reservoir strain (R), contractile strain (CT), and conduit strain (CD) [16]. We sought to investigate the association of CMR-derived LA anatomical and functional parameters including strain with AF recurrence post catheter ablation in patients with paroxysmal AF (pAF). We hypothesized that changes in LA function and/or strain as assessed by CMR are associated with AF recurrence after catheter AF ablation.

Methods

Patient population

This study was approved by Loyola University Medical Centre’s Institutional Review Board. The inclusion criteria were: (1) patients diagnosed with pAF, (2) underwent a catheter-based PVI between January 2014 and December 2019, (3) underwent pre- and post-ablation CMR. Patients were excluded if they had: (1) implanted pacemaker or implanted cardiovert-defibrillator device, (2) non-sinus rhythm during CMR, (3) were lost to follow up within a year of the ablation procedure, or (4) history of heart transplant. A total of 102 patients met our inclusion criteria. After excluding patients where CMR strain was uninterpretable (n = 15) or those who were lost to follow up (n = 7), 80 patients were included in this analysis. In addition to PVI, patients underwent ablation of LA rotors (n = 13), cavotricuspid isthmus (n = 22), superior vena cava (n = 5) and roof line ablation (n = 8).

CMR imaging and analysis

CMR was performed prior to (median 32 days; Q1–Q3: 15–67 days) and after (median 131 days; Q1–Q3: 114–201 days) AF ablation. CMR images were acquired using clinically available retrospective electrocardiogram (ECG) gated balanced steady-state free precession sequence on 3 T CMR scanner (Magnetom Trio, Siemens Healthineers, Erlangen, Germany). CMR acquisition parameters included a temporal resolution of ≈50 ms, TR 45 ms, TE 1.2 ms, FOV 300–360 cm, matrix 224 × 204, and slice thickness 7 mm. CMR quantitative analysis was performed on cvi42 (version 5.0; Circle Cardiovascular Imaging Inc., Calgary, Alberta, Canada) using computer assisted manual planimetry. LA volumes were measured using the area–length method (4) and included maximum, minimum, and pre-atrial-contraction volumes from the 2 and 4 chamber views, volume = (0.848 × area4ch × area2ch)/([length2ch + length4ch]/2). All measured LA volumes were indexed to body surface area. The variables of LA volumes (LAV) included in the study were:

  • Maximum LA Volume (LAVmax) = LA volume at end systole before mitral valve opening

  • Minimum LA Volume (LAVmin) = LA volume at end diastole right after mitral valve closure

  • Preatrial Contraction LA volume (LAVPreA) = LA volume before atrial contraction

Using the measured LA volumes at different points of cardiac cycle, LA ejection fraction (LAEF) was calculated as follows:

  • Passive LAEF: (LAVmax−LAVPreA)/LAVmax.

  • Active LAEF: (LAVPreA−LAVmin)/LAVPreA.

  • Total LAEF: (LAVmax−LAVmin)/LAVmax.

  • Expansion index: (LAVmax−LAVmin)/LAVmin

Multimodality Tissue Tracking software (version 5.0, Circle Cardiovascular Imaging Inc.) was used to measure R and CT from 4- and 2-chamber cine CMR images (Fig. 1), the difference between these two measurements was CD [16]. Strain measurements were performed by computer assisted manual planimetry where the investigator defines endocardial and epicardial borders of the LA at end systole and using the marked points, the software creates endocardial and epicardial borders and then tracks LA wall in subsequent frames. CINE loops with superimposed longitudinal strain tracings were played to confirm accurate tracking of the LA endo- and epicardium throughout the cardiac cycle. If tracking was inaccurate at some point during the cardiac cycle, the planimetry was corrected manually and the software algorithm reapplied. The final strain results were taken as an average of the 2 and 4 chamber views. This method has been previously validated with excellent reproducibility (intraclass correlation coefficients between 0.90 and 0.97 for LA volumes and strain) [16,17,18]. Strain measurements were accepted only in the case of adequate tracking quality in at least five of the six segments per view. We also calculated ΔR, ΔCT, ΔCD as the difference between pre- and post-ablation values of R, CT and CD, respectively. Strain measurements were performed by a CMR trained and board-certified investigator with one year experience who was blinded to the case status of the participants. All patients were followed up in outpatient clinic for monitoring and arrhythmia management. AF recurrence was identified by ECG documentation of an atrial tachyarrhythmia lasting ≥ 30 s on a 12-lead ECG, event recording, or Holter monitor recording. Recurrence rates were determined regardless of whether patients were on antiarrhythmic medications or not. Atrial arrhythmias that occurred during the first 90 days after catheter ablation and resolved spontaneously or with cardioversion, were not counted as recurrences (blanking period).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Left: Example of left atrial (LA) tissue tracking in still frames of cine cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) (balanced steady-state free precession imaging) four chamber (left top) and two chamber (left bottom) cine loops. Right: Longitudinal strain with two peaks representing reservoir (R) and contractile (CT) strain. The difference between the two measurements is conduit strain (CD)

Statistical analysis

Continuous variables are presented as mean ± SD if normally distributed and as medians with interquartile ranges (Q1–Q3) if not normally distributed. Categorical variables are presented as frequencies and percentages. Differences between group means were evaluated with t tests for continuous variables or χ2 analysis for categorical variables. Multivariate logistic regression model was constructed adjusting for the following clinical parameters: age, gender, hypertension, obstructive sleep apnea in addition to the CMR-derived LA parameters with P values < 0.1. To avoid collinearity, correlations between continuous variables were tested using the Spearman correlation coefficient and variables with r > 0.50 were not included in the model. We used a modified Cox proportional hazard model to estimate the time-dependent hazard ratios of AF recurrence in tertiles of patients based on baseline R and post-ablation CT. Cox models were adjusted for the same predictors of AF recurrence as used for the multivariable model, mentioned above. Statistical analyses were performed using MedCalc for Windows (version 15.0, MedCalc Software, Ostend, Belgium). All P values reported are from two-sided tests, and P values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

Results

Baseline demographics, clinical characteristics and medications at the time of the ablation procedure are listed in Table 1. Mean age was 58.6 ± 9.4 years, 75% were men, mean CHA2DS2-VASc score was 1.7 ± 1.4; 36% had prior cardioversion and 51% were taking antiarrhythmic drugs. Patients were followed for a median of 4 years (Q1–Q3 = 2.5–6.2 years) after AF ablation. Of 80 patients, 21 (26.3%) patients had AF recurrence. The median duration after catheter ablation to AF recurrence was 5 months (Q1–3: 3–11 months). There were no significant differences between AF recurrence vs. no AF recurrence groups in age, gender, CHA2DS2-VASc score, or baseline comorbidities (all P > 0.05).

Table 1 Patient baseline characteristics

AF ablation was associated with a decrease in LA volumes (LAVmax, LAVmin, LAVpreA), pulmonary vein ostial diameters and all three LA strain parameters (Table 2). No significant improvement was seen in right atrial (RA) volumes or left ventricular (LV) and right ventricular (RV) volumes and ejection fraction.

Table 2 Comparison of pre and post ablation LA characteristics on CMR

At baseline, patients with AF recurrence (Table 3) had lower LV end systolic volume index (p = 0.045) and lower CT (p = 0.05). Post-ablation, patients with AF recurrence had higher LA minimum volume (p = 0.05), RA volume index (p = 0.04) and lower LA active ejection fraction (p = 0.05), LA total ejection fraction (p = 0.02), LA expansion index (p = 0.03) and CT (p = 0.04).

Table 3 Pre- and post-ablation CMR characteristics of patients with no AF recurrence versus those with AF recurrence

Adjusting for clinical variables in the multivariate logistic regression model, post-ablation minimum LAV (OR 1.09; CI 1.02–1.16), LA expansion index (OR 0.98; CI 0.96–0.99), and baseline R (OR 0.92; CI 0.85–0.99) were independently associated with AF recurrence. (Table 4) Cox proportional hazard model results are presented in Figs. 2 and 3 where survival free of AF is represented for the three tertiles of the baseline R and post-ablation CT. For the baseline R model, tertiles one, two, and three corresponded to a baseline R of < 21.5, 21.5–27 and > 27, respectively. The model showed a longer survival free of AF in patients with a higher baseline R. For the post-ablation CT model, teriles one, two, and three corresponded to a post-ablation CT of < 5.3, 5–8 and > 8, respectively. The model showed a trend towards longer survival free of AF in patients with higher post-ablation CT. Additional file 1 shows comparison graphs of baseline and post-ablation reservoir and contractile strain in AF recurrence and no-recurrence groups. 

Table 4 Univariate (unadjusted) and multi-variate (adjusted) logistic regression results for factors associated with AF recurrence
Fig. 2
figure 2

Cox-proportional hazard model for survival free of atrial fibrillation by tertiles of baseline reservoir strain (R), adjusted for age, gender, hypertension, and obstructive sleep apnea. Tertiles one, two, three corresponded to a baseline R of < 21, 21–27 and > 27, respectively

Fig. 3
figure 3

Cox-proportional hazard model for survival free of atrial fibrillation by tertiles of post-ablation contractile strain (CT), adjusted for age, gender, hypertension, and obstructive sleep apnea. Tertiles one, two, three corresponded to a post-ablation CT of < 5.3, 5.3–8 and > 8, respectively

Discussion

In this retrospective study, we evaluated the association of CMR derived LA anatomical and functional parameters in pAF patients with AF recurrence after catheter ablation. Our main finding were that: (1) PVI leads to a decrease in LA volumes with a decrease in all LA strain parameters (2) baseline R and post-ablation minimum LAV and LA expansion index are independently associated with AF recurrence.

AF recurrence is not uncommon after catheter ablation with freedom from atrial arrhythmia at long-term follow-up (≥ 2 years) after a single procedure is about 53% which increases to 80% with multiple procedures [19]. Early recurrence is thought to be due to leaking of AF electrical impulses due to less early fibrous tissue formation around pulmonary veins after PVI whereas late recurrence is more likely from the shifting of AF foci from pulmonary veins to the LA due to stressors and other co-morbid conditions [20]. Poor LA function has been associated with several poor outcomes including implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) shocks [17, 18, 21,22,23], ischemic events and worsening LV diastolic function in patients [22]. LA size and volumes have been reported as predictors of sinus rhythm maintenance after AF ablation [24, 25]. LA size using echocardiographic derived anteroposterior LA diameter has been studied mostly. A meta-analysis by Zhuang et al. of 22 studies (3750 subjects) that used anteroposterior LA diameter showed that the mean difference of LA diameter between patients with and without recurrence was 1.9 mm (95% CI 1.3–2.5, P < 0.001) and dilated LA was associated with significantly increased risk of AF recurrence after single PVI [24]. LAV is more accurate in assessing LA size but studies using LAV as a predictor of AF recurrence have been contradictory. Njoku et al. published a meta-analysis of 21 studies (3822 subjects) that used LAV/LAV index as a predictor of AF recurrence after PVI [25]. Both mean LAV (11 studies, 1559 subjects) and LAV index (9 studies, 1425 subjects) were higher in patients with recurrence (OR 1.03, CI 1.01–1.05). Our study had a more comprehensive design and evaluated both volumes and LA function parameters pre and post ablation as predictors of AF recurrence after PVI.

LAV measured in our study were higher than normal values by CMR reported in the literature [26]. Considering that our study only included patients with pAF, this is not an unexpected finding. Our LAV were fairly similar to previous studies in patients with AF [9, 10]. LA remodelling may occur after PVI and entails a decrease in LAV and an increase in LAEF [10]. This LA remodelling has been associated with AF recurrence, more so with late than early recurrence [27]. Recent data from Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) study showed that adverse remodelling i.e. elevated LAV and decreased passive and total LAEF, precedes AF in a multi-ethnic population who were free of clinical cardiovascular disease at baseline [26].

LA strain is a highly reproducible [16] measure of LA deformation and has been shown to be a sensitive marker of intracavitary pressures and LA reservoir function [28]. LA strain is also a useful marker of AF risk incremental to LA size in the general population and is an independent predictor of AF recurrence [28, 29].

In our study, baseline R was significantly associated with AF recurrence in the multivariate analysis. This is in line with previous echocardiographic studies that showed an association between the baseline strain and AF recurrence following PVI or cardioversion [12, 30]. We also found a significant association of post ablation LAVmin and expansion index with AF recurrence after PVI, however, the association was stronger with baseline R than volumetric indices. Baseline R would also be more relevant clinically to help risk stratify patients prior to ablation. Studies using echocardiography have shown that functional parameters of LA strain and strain rate on tissue Doppler imaging or speckle echocardiography are better predictors of AF recurrence than LAV [30,31,32,33]. Theoretically, LA strain is less affected by loading conditions and by tethering effects than volumetric measurements [22]. Our study extends these findings to CMR as a potential tool for estimating future risk of AF recurrence by using R prior to ablation.

Limitations

Several limitations need to be considered when interpreting the results of our study. Our study is a ret r osp ective observational study, with some inherent biases related to the study design including a lack of standardization in patient follow up clinic visits and rhythm monitoring strategies to detect AF recurrence. As described in the methods section, some patients underwent additional ablation in addition to the standard PVI and that might have affe cted the post-ablation LA anatomic and functional parameters. We only included pAF patients who have undergone radiofrequency ablation. Our results m i ght n ot be generalizable to those with persistent AF or those who underwent other forms of ablation, e.g. cryoablation. Due to the relatively small sample size, some of the variables may not have reached statistical significance. Although post-ablation CMR is a common routine practice at our institution, selection bias might be significant as we only included patients who were in sinus rhythm at the time of pre and post-ablation CMR. We used clinically available CMR cine sequence with a temporal resolution of 50 ms for strain measurements based on previously published data by MESA investigators [21]. A higher temporal resolution might have produced more precise measurements. There is no dedicated validated CMR software exclusively for LA strain measurements. We utilized the strain software developed for LV strain as done by other investigators. LA late gadolinium enhancement noted on CMR is an important parameter of LA fibrosis that might have a prognostic factor for AF recurrence, however, it was not investigated in this study.

Conclusions

We investigated structural and functional parameters of LA in patients with pAF undergoing PVI and found that baseline R and post-ablation minimum LAV and expansion index were independently associated with AF recurrence. Among these parameters, baseline R would be more clinically useful as most patients don’t routinely undergo post ablation CMR. Patients with a higher risk of recurrence might need closer surveillance, more intense risk factor modification and/or modification of their antiarrhythmic regimen. Further validation studies are needed before CMR parameters can be included in the routine risk models in AF patients.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

CD:

Conduit strain

CT:

Contractile strain

R:

Reservoir strain

2DE:

Two dimensional echocardiography

3DE:

Three dimensional echocardiography

AF:

Atrial fibrillation

CMR:

Cardiovascular magnetic resonance

ECG:

Electrocardiography

LA:

Left atrium

LAEF:

Left atrial ejection fraction

LAV:

Left atrial volume

LAVmax:

Maximal left atrial volume

LAVmin:

Minimum left atrial volume

LAVpreA:

Pre atrial systole left atrial volume

LV:

Left ventricle/left ventricular

LVEDVI:

Left ventricular end-diastolic volume index

LVESVI:

Left ventricular end-systolic volume index

pAF:

Paroxysmal atrial fibrillation

PVI:

Pulmonary vein isolation

RA:

Right atrium/right atrial

RV:

Right ventricular/right ventricular

RVEDVI:

Right ventricular end-diastolic volume index

RVESVI:

Right ventricular end-systolic volume index

References

  1. Atrial fibrillation: current understandings and research imperatives. The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Working Group on Atrial Fibrillation. J Am Coll Cardiol 1993;22:1830–4.

  2. Leong DP, Eikelboom JW, Healey JS, Connolly SJ. Atrial fibrillation is associated with increased mortality: causation or association? Eur Heart J. 2013;34:1027–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Corradi D, Callegari S, Benussi S, et al. Regional left atrial interstitial remodeling in patients with chronic atrial fibrillation undergoing mitral-valve surgery. Virchows Arch. 2004;445:498–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Sievers B, Kirchberg S, Addo M, Bakan A, Brandts B, Trappe HJ. Assessment of left atrial volumes in sinus rhythm and atrial fibrillation using the biplane area-length method and cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging with TrueFISP. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2004;6:855–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Kuppahally SS, Akoum N, Burgon NS, et al. Left atrial strain and strain rate in patients with paroxysmal and persistent atrial fibrillation: relationship to left atrial structural remodeling detected by delayed-enhancement MRI. Circ Cardiovasc Imag. 2010;3:231–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Margulescu AD, Nunez-Garcia M, Alarcon F, et al. Reproducibility and accuracy of late gadolinium enhancement cardiac magnetic resonance measurements for the detection of left atrial fibrosis in patients undergoing atrial fibrillation ablation procedures. Europace. 2019;21:724–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Nedios S, Koutalas E, Sommer P, et al. Asymmetrical left atrial remodelling in atrial fibrillation: relation with diastolic dysfunction and long-term ablation outcomes. Europace. 2017;19:1463–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hundley WG, Meshack BM, Willett DL, et al. Comparison of quantitation of left ventricular volume, ejection fraction, and cardiac output in patients with atrial fibrillation by cine magnetic resonance imaging versus invasive measurements. Am J Cardiol. 1996;78:1119–23.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Kriatselis C, Unruh T, Kaufmann J, et al. Long-term left atrial remodeling after ablation of persistent atrial fibrillation: 7-year follow-up by cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging. J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2020;58:21–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Jahnke C, Fischer J, Gerds-Li JH, et al. Serial monitoring of reverse left-atrial remodeling after pulmonary vein isolation in patients with atrial fibrillation: a magnetic resonance imaging study. Int J Cardiol. 2011;153:42–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Dodson JA, Neilan TG, Shah RV, et al. Left atrial passive emptying function determined by cardiac magnetic resonance predicts atrial fibrillation recurrence after pulmonary vein isolation. Circ Cardiovasc Imag. 2014;7:586–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Mouselimis D, Tsarouchas AS, Pagourelias ED, et al. Left atrial strain, intervendor variability, and atrial fibrillation recurrence after catheter ablation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hellenic J Cardiol. 2020;61:154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Tao S, Ciuffo LA, Lima JAC, Wu KC, Ashikaga H. Quantifying left atrial structure and function using single-plane tissue-tracking cardiac magnetic resonance. Magn Reson Imag. 2017;42:130–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kowallick JT, Kutty S, Edelmann F, et al. Quantification of left atrial strain and strain rate using Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance myocardial feature tracking: a feasibility study. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2014;16:60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Truong VT, Palmer C, Wolking S, et al. Normal left atrial strain and strain rate using cardiac magnetic resonance feature tracking in healthy volunteers. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imag. 2020;21:446–53.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Pathan F, Zainal Abidin HA, Vo QH, Zhou H, D’Angelo T, Elen E, et al. Left atrial strain: a multi-modality, multi-vendor comparison study. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imag. 2021;22(1):102–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Badano LP, Kolias TJ, Muraru D, et al. Standardization of left atrial, right ventricular, and right atrial deformation imaging using two-dimensional speckle tracking echocardiography: a consensus document of the EACVI/ASE/Industry Task Force to standardize deformation imaging. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imag. 2018;19:591–600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Zareian M, Ciuffo L, Habibi M, et al. Left atrial structure and functional quantitation using cardiovascular magnetic resonance and multimodality tissue tracking: validation and reproducibility assessment. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2015;17:52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Ganesan AN, Shipp NJ, Brooks AG, et al. Long-term outcomes of catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Heart Assoc. 2013;2:e004549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Andrade JG, Khairy P, Macle L, et al. Incidence and significance of early recurrences of atrial fibrillation after cryoballoon ablation: insights from the multicenter Sustained Treatment of Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation (STOP AF) Trial. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2014;7:69–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Habibi M, Chahal H, Opdahl A, et al. Association of CMR-measured LA function with heart failure development: results from the MESA study. JACC Cardiovasc Imag. 2014;7:570–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Thomas L, Marwick TH, Popescu BA, Donal E, Badano LP. Left atrial structure and function, and left ventricular diastolic dysfunction: JACC state-of-the-art review. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;73:1961–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Tao S, Ashikaga H, Ciuffo LA, et al. Impaired left atrial function predicts inappropriate shocks in primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator candidates. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2017;28:796–805.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Zhuang J, Wang Y, Tang K, et al. Association between left atrial size and atrial fibrillation recurrence after single circumferential pulmonary vein isolation: a systamatic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Europace. 2012;14:738–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Njoku A, Kannabhiran M, Arora R, et al. Left atrial volume predicts atrial fibrillation recurrence after radiofrequence ablation: a meta-analysis. EP Europace. 2018;20:33–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Habibi M, Samiei S, Ambale Venkatesh B, et al. Cardiac magnetic resonance-measured left atrial volume and function and incident atrial fibrillation: results from MESA (Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis). Circ Cardiovasc Imag. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.115.004299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Ma XX, Zhang YL, Hu B, et al. The usefulness of global left atrial strain for predicting atrial fibrillation recurrence after catheter ablation in patients with persistent and paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. Arch Cardiovasc Dis. 2017;110:447–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Cameli M, Mandoli GE, Loiacono F, Dini FL, Henein M, Mondillo S. Left atrial strain: a new parameter for assessment of left ventricular filling pressure. Heart Fail Rev. 2016;21:65–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Tops LF, Delgado V, Bertini M, et al. Left atrial strain predicts reverse remodeling after catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;57:324–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Mirza M, Caracciolo G, Khan U, et al. Left atrial reservoir function predicts atrial fibrillation recurrence after catheter ablation: a two-dimensional speckle strain study. J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2011;31:197–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Hammerstingl C, Schwekendiek M, Momcilovic D, et al. Left atrial deformation imaging with ultrasound based two-dimensional speckle-tracking predicts the rate of recurrence of paroxysmal and persistent atrial fibrillation after successful ablation procedures. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2012;23:247–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Cameli M, Lisi M, Righini FM, et al. Usefulness of atrial deformation analysis to predict left atrial fibrosis and endocardial thickness in patients undergoing mitral valve operations for severe mitral regurgitation secondary to mitral valve prolapse. Am J Cardiol. 2013;111:595–601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Motoki H, Negishi K, Kusunose K, et al. Global left atrial strain in the prediction of sinus rhythm maintenance after catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2014;27:1184–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

This study did not receive any funding.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

MMB and MAS had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Study concept and design: MAS, MMB. Acquisition of data: NM, MMB, AW, HR, NS. Analysis and interpretation of data: MMB, MAS. Draft of the manuscript: MMB, MAS. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: MR, MK, TS, DW, MAS. Statistical analysis: MMB. Study supervision: MAS. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mushabbar A. Syed.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethics approval and informed consent was waived since this was a retrospective study.

Consent for publication

The manuscript is approved by all authors for publication.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1:

Multiple comparison graphs of the baseline and post-ablation reservoir (top) and contractile (bottom) strain data in both groups.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Benjamin, M.M., Moulki, N., Waqar, A. et al. Association of left atrial strain by cardiovascular magnetic resonance with recurrence of atrial fibrillation following catheter ablation. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 24, 3 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12968-021-00831-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12968-021-00831-3

Keywords

  • Atrial fibrillation
  • Left atrial strain
  • Cardiovascular magnetic resonance
  • Catheter ablation
  • Recurrence