Loading…

Comparison of Pulmonary Venous and Left Atrial Remodeling in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation With Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy Versus With Hypertensive Heart Disease

Left ventricular diastolic dysfunction in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HC) increases susceptibility to atrial fibrillation. Although phenotypical characteristics of the hypertrophied left ventricle are clear, left atrial (LA) and pulmonary venous (PV) remodeling has rarely been investigated. This st...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:The American journal of cardiology 2017-04, Vol.119 (8), p.1262-1268
Main Authors: Yoshida, Kentaro, MD, Hasebe, Hideyuki, MD, Tsumagari, Yasuaki, MD, Tsuneoka, Hidekazu, MD, Ebine, Mari, Uehara, Yoshiko, BSN, Seo, Yoshihiro, MD, Aonuma, Kazutaka, MD, Takeyasu, Noriyuki, MD
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Left ventricular diastolic dysfunction in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HC) increases susceptibility to atrial fibrillation. Although phenotypical characteristics of the hypertrophied left ventricle are clear, left atrial (LA) and pulmonary venous (PV) remodeling has rarely been investigated. This study aimed to identify differences in LA and PV remodeling between HC and hypertensive heart disease (HHD) using 3-dimensional computed tomography. Included were 33 consecutive patients with HC, 25 with HHD, and 29 without any co-morbidities who were referred for catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation. Pre-ablation plasma atrial and brain natriuretic peptide levels, post-ablation troponin T level, and LA pressure were measured, and LA and PV diameters were determined 3 dimensionally. LA transverse diameter in the control group was smaller than that in the HHD or HC group (55 ± 6 vs 63 ± 9 vs 65 ± 12 mm, p = 0.0003). PV diameter in all 4 PVs was greatest in the HC group and second greatest in the HHD group (21.0 ± 3.1 vs 23.8 ± 2.8 vs 26.8 ± 4.1 mm, p
ISSN:0002-9149
1879-1913
DOI:10.1016/j.amjcard.2016.12.025