Risk of atrial fibrillation according to the initial presentation of a preexcitation syndrome

Unresolved questions associated with the management of ventricular preexcitation syndrome

BACKGROUND

Many recent recommendations concern the management of preexcitation syndrome. In clinical practice, they are sometimes difficult to use. The purpose of the authors was to discuss the main problems associated with this management. Three problems are encountered: (1) the reality of the absence of symptoms or the interpretation of atypical symptoms, (2) the electrocardiographic diagnosis of preexcitation syndrome that can be missed, and (3) the exact electrophysiological protocol and its interpretation used for the evaluation of the prognosis. Because of significant progress largely related to the development of curative treatment, it seems easy to propose ablation in many patients despite the related risks of invasive studies and to minimize the invasive risk by only performing ablation for patients with at-risk pathways. However, there is a low risk of spontaneous events in truly asymptomatic patients and the indication of accessory pathway ablation should be discussed case by case.

Risk factors responsible for atrial fibrillation development between symptomatic patients with concealed or manifest atrioventricular accessory pathways

Background

Patients with manifest atrioventricular accessory pathways (mAPs) have a greater tendency to develop atrial fibrillation (AF) compared with patients with concealed atrioventricular accessory pathways (cAPs). However, the risk factors of developing AF in patients with various atrioventricular accessory pathways (APs) are not clear.

Methods

This retrospective study included 460 symptomatic patients with either cAPs (n = 246) or mAPs (n = 214) who underwent electrophysiological study and successful radiofrequency catheter ablation of APs. Clinical and electrophysiological characteristics were compared between cAPs and mAPs and between AF and non-AF groups with cAPs or mAPs. Independent risk factors of AF were analyzed using multivariate logistic regression.

Results

AF was more frequent in mAPs group than in cAPs group (23.4% vs 9.8%, p < 0.01). Clinical features were similar between cAPs and mAPs. Anterograde conduction properties served as the major electrophysiological feature of mAPs. Multivariate analysis indicated that mAPs, hypertension, post-ablation P wave dispersion (Pd), N-terminal proB-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) and creatinine were independent risk factors of AF in the complete cohort. Hypertension, post-ablation Pd and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) were independent risk factors of AF in cAPs group. Post-ablation Pd, NT-proBNP, creatinine and shorter effective refractory period of anterograde accessory pathways (AAP ERP) were independent risk factors of AF in mAPs group.

Conclusions

Results from this study demonstrate that the risk factors of AF are not homogenous between concealed and manifest APs, which might suggest heterogeneous pathogenesis of AF in these two types of APs.