Abstract
Background
This study aimed to clarify P‐wave duration (PWD) ability before pacemaker implantation to predict worsening atrial fibrillation (AF) burden after the procedure.
Methods
We retrospectively investigated 75 patients who underwent permanent pacemaker implantation due to sick sinus syndrome (SSS) at Komaki City Hospital between January 2006 and May 2019. Worsening AF burden was defined as an increase in the number of AF episodes, each lasting ≥5.5 hours a day.
Results
In the study population, 17 patients (23%) had worsening AF burden during the follow‐up period. These patients had significantly longer PWD in lead Ⅱ (117.9 ± 19.9 ms vs 101.3 ± 20.0 ms, P = .002) than the patients without worsening AF burden. The best discriminative cutoff value for PWD in lead Ⅱ was 108 ms (sensitivity, 77%; specificity, 67%). In multivariate analysis, PWD in lead II ≥108 ms (hazard ratio, 5.395; 95% confidence interval, 1.352‐21.523; P = .017) was an independent predictor of worsening AF burden. Patients with PWD in lead II <108 ms showed a significantly higher event‐free rate against worsening AF burden than those with PWD in lead II ≥108 ms (81% vs 9%, P = .005).
Conclusions
Prolonged PWD before pacemaker implantation was the most important independent predictor of worsening AF burden after the procedure. In patients with SSS, prolonged PWD can be a useful marker for predicting worsening of AF burden after pacemaker implantation.
Keywords: atrial fibrillation, electrocardiogram, pacemaker, P‐wave duration, sick sinus syndrome
1. INTRODUCTION
Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most commonly encountered arrhythmia. The number of AF patients increases among the higher age groups, and it is projected to reach 1 million people in 2050.1 AF is associated with increased mortality, heart failure, stroke, and decreased quality of life.2, 3 AF is frequently observed in patients with permanent pacemakers, and it carries the risk of heart failure hospitalization and stroke.4, 5 Managing AF is equally essential in patients with pacemakers and those without pacemakers. In patients with pacemakers, a higher percentage of ventricular pacing increased the risk of AF occurrence.6 Therefore, we attempted to program AV delay prolongation to avoid the high percentage of ventricular pacing in patients maintained by atrioventricular conduction. However, AF episodes were occasionally detected in patients with a lower percentage of ventricular pacing. Thus, the risk factors of AF occurrence are still unclear in patients with pacemakers.
Atrial structural and electrical remodeling are essential factors in the pathogenesis of AF. Atrial remodeling progression causes atrial conduction heterogeneity,7 which manifests as changes in the P‐wave morphology on electrocardiogram (ECG). P‐wave duration (PWD) has been demonstrated to be a reliable and noninvasive marker for predicting the incidence of AF.8 Kaypakli et al9 reported that prolonged PWD was associated with AF recurrence after cryoballoon ablation. This study aimed to clarify the predictive ability of PWD before pacemaker implantation on worsening AF burden after the procedure.
2. METHODS
2.1. Patient population
We retrospectively investigated 75 patients who underwent permanent pacemaker implantation due to sick sinus syndrome (SSS) at Komaki City Hospital between January 2006 and May 2019. Pacemaker implantation was performed for patients with symptomatic SSS, such as sinus bradycardia, sinoatrial block, sinus arrest, or bradycardia‐tachycardia syndrome. Exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) second or third‐degree atrioventricular block, (2) persistent or permanent AF, (3) junctional rhythm, (4) history of ventricular tachycardia, (5) intake of antiarrhythmic drugs before pacemaker implantation, (6) previous catheter ablation or prior heart surgery, (7) severe valvular heart disease, and (8) left ventricular ejection fraction <35%. Informed consent was obtained from all patients before the procedure, in accordance with our institutional guidelines. This study was performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.
2.2. Electrocardiographic assessment
Twelve standard surface ECG leads were recorded before the procedure in all patients. Patients who received antiarrhythmic drugs before pacemaker implantation were excluded. Therefore, all ECGs were recorded without the influence of antiarrhythmic drugs. The ECG was digitally recorded with a paper speed and scale at 25 mm/s and 10 mm/mV, respectively (ECG‐2550; Nihon Kohden). The PR interval, PWD, and P‐wave amplitude were measured manually using a digital caliper in leads V1 and Ⅱ. The P‐wave duration index (PWDI) was calculated by dividing the PWD by the PR interval. The P‐wave was between the initial upward or downward point from the isoelectric line and the returning point to the isoelectric line. The isoelectric line was defined as the beginning of the P‐QRS complex to the end of the T‐wave (Figure 1).
FIGURE 1.
Schematic representation of P‐wave duration in lead V1. A is the P‐wave duration, and B is the PR interval
2.3. Procedure of pacemaker implantation
The indication for pacemaker implantation was symptomatic SSS. The pacemaker devices used were manufactured by Medtronic, Inc, St. Jude Medical, Inc, or Abbott, Inc The right atrial lead was placed in the right atrial appendage, and the right ventricular lead was placed in the low‐septum or apex. Devices were programmed with pacing mode DDD and prolonged atrioventricular delay, managed by ventricular pacing (MVPTM, Medtronic) or ventricular intrinsic preference (VIPTM, St. Jude Medical or Abbott) mode to minimize ventricular pacing.
2.4. Patient follow‐up
The patients were hospitalized under continuous rhythm monitoring for 4 days after the procedure. After hospital discharge, all patients were scheduled for follow‐up visits. Device interrogations were performed 1, 6, and 12 months after pacemaker implantation, and then every 6 months. During device interrogations, atrial/ventricle lead parameters, percentages of atrial and ventricular pacing, automatic mode switch episodes, the burden of AF episodes, and noise episodes were recorded. If patients noticed any rhythm disorders in between follow‐up visits, they were recommended to arrange an early visit to the hospital for device interrogation. Worsening AF burden was defined as an increase in the number of AF episodes, with each episode lasting ≥5.5 hours a day.10 The increase in the number of AF episodes was the comparison of the number of AF episodes in the first follow‐up visit after pacemaker implantation and in the last follow‐up visit. Patients received antiarrhythmic drugs, catheter ablation, or anti‐tachycardia pacing (ATP), if necessary.
2.5. Statistical analysis
Continuous variables are presented as mean ± standard deviation. Categorical variables are presented as percentages. A chi‐square test was performed to compare categorical variables, and a Mann‐Whitney U test was performed to compare continuous variables. In this study, we used the receiver‐operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis to determine the cutoff value. This method calculates the distance between the point (0, 1) and the point of cutoff value defined as the point on ROC curve where the distance is at a minimum. The factors shown to have a P‐value of <.05 in the univariate analysis were further assessed using multivariate analysis. The event‐free survival rate was estimated using the Kaplan‐Meier method and compared to the recurrence rate using a log‐rank test. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS version 25 (SPSS Inc). A P‐value of <.05 was considered statistically significant.
3. RESULTS
3.1. Patient characteristics
A comparison of the baseline demographic and clinical characteristics between the patients with and without worsening AF burden is presented in Table 1. In the study population, 17 patients (23%) had worsening AF burden during the follow‐up period. The patients with worsening AF burden had a significantly higher age than the patients without AF burden (79 ± 6 years vs 74 ± 11 years, P = .016). They also had a higher proportion of hypertension patients (59% vs 31%, P = .037) and history of AF (88% vs 53%, P = .01). In addition, AF burdens in the first follow‐up visit after pacemaker implantation showed significantly higher in the patients with worsening AF burden (23.0 ± 36.9% vs 5.0 ± 12.2%, P < .001). In terms of echocardiographic parameters, the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was significantly lower in the patients with worsening AF burden (61.0 ± 11.6% vs 68.3 ± 7.3%, P = .021). The left atrial diameter and left atrial volume index were similar between the two groups. In addition, the number of patients prescribed with β‐blockers after pacemaker implantation was significantly higher in the patients with worsening AF burden (71% vs 29%, P = .002). The other clinical and echocardiographic parameters, and the details of antiarrhythmic therapy, such as antiarrhythmic drugs, catheter ablation, and ATP, were similar between the two groups.
TABLE 1.
Comparison of baseline demographic and clinical characteristics between the patients with and without worsen AT/AF burden in the study population
| Parameters | All patients, n = 75 | Worsen AT/AF burden, n = 17 | Without worsen AT/AF burden, n = 58 | P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, years | 75 ± 11 | 79 ± 6 | 74 ± 11 | .016 |
| Male | 45 (60%) | 10 (59%) | 35 (60%) | .91 |
| Hypertension | 28 (37%) | 10 (59%) | 18 (31%) | .037 |
| Congestive heart failure | 11 (15%) | 4 (24%) | 7 (12%) | .24 |
| Diabetes mellitus | 15 (20%) | 6 (35%) | 9 (16%) | .073 |
| Chronic kidney disease | 8 (11%) | 3 (18%) | 5 (9%) | .289 |
| Stroke/TIA | 7 (9%) | 1 (6%) | 6 (10%) | .578 |
| CHADS2 score | 1.6 ± 1.1 | 1.9 ± 1.1 | 1.5 ± 1.0 | .091 |
| CHA2DS2‐VASc score | 2.8 ± 1.4 | 3.2 ± 1.4 | 2.7 ± 1.0 | .133 |
| History of AF | 46 (61%) | 15 (88%) | 31 (53%) | .01 |
| BNP, pg/mL | 93.1 ± 111.9 | 90.5 ± 46.4 | 93.5 ± 120.2 | .481 |
| eGFR, mL/min/1.73 m2 | 57.3 ± 19.6 | 51.3 ± 13.5 | 58.5 ± 20.5 | .137 |
| Hb, g/dL | 13.1 ± 1.8 | 13.5 ± 1.8 | 13.0 ± 1.8 | .317 |
| Echocardiographic parameters | ||||
| LVEF, % | 66.5 ± 9.1 | 61.0 ± 11.6 | 68.3 ± 7.3 | .021 |
| LAD, mm | 38.5 ± 5.4 | 38.8 ± 5.9 | 38.4 ± 5.3 | .633 |
| LA volume index, mL/m2 | 37.0 ± 12.5 | 34.0 ± 9.1 | 37.7 ± 13.2 | .484 |
| E/e′ | 14.6 ± 9.4 | 14.1 ± 6.8 | 14.7 ± 10.0 | .89 |
| Antiarrhythmic therapy after device implantation | ||||
| β‐blocker | 29 (39%) | 12 (71%) | 17 (29%) | .002 |
| Antiarrhythmic drug | 20 (27%) | 5 (29%) | 15 (26%) | .801 |
| Class Ⅰ | 8 (11%) | 0 (0%) | 8 (14%) | .105 |
| Class Ⅲ | 12 (16%) | 5 (29%) | 7 (12%) | .086 |
| Catheter ablation | 21 (28%) | 3 (18%) | 18 (31%) | .28 |
| ATP | 18 (24%) | 7 (41%) | 11 (19%) | .059 |
| Parameters after device implantation | ||||
| Atrial pacing ratio in first follow‐up visit, % | 60 ± 31 | 60 ± 30 | 60 ± 31 | .994 |
| AF burdens in first follow‐up visit, % | 9.0 ± 21.4 | 23.0 ± 36.9 | 5.0 ± 12.2 | <.001 |
| AF burdens in last follow‐up visit, % | 13.5 ± 30.0 | 50.5 ± 45.8 | 2.6 ± 7.0 | <.001 |
Values are mean ± SD or number (percentage).
Abbreviations: AF, atrial fibrillation;AT, atrial tachycardia; ATP, antitachycardia pacing; BNP, brain natriuretic peptide; eGFR, estimated glomerular filtration rate; Hb, Hemoglobin; LA, left atrium; LAD, left atrial diameter; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; TIA, transient ischemic attack.
3.2. ECG parameters before pacemaker implantation
A comparison of the ECG parameters of the P‐wave indices is shown in Table 2. The PR interval, number of patients with first‐degree atrioventricular block, P‐wave amplitude in leads V1 and Ⅱ, PWD, and PWDI in lead V1 were similar between the two groups. In patients with worsening AF burden, the PWD in lead Ⅱ was significantly longer (117.9 ± 19.9 ms vs 101.3 ± 20.0 ms, P = .002), and the PWDI in lead Ⅱ was significantly larger (0.65 ± 0.14 vs 0.56 ± 0.12, P = .014). ROC curve analysis was performed to evaluate the correlation between PWD in lead Ⅱ and worsening AF burden after pacemaker implantation. We set the cutoff values of PWD and PWDI in lead Ⅱ to 108 ms (sensitivity, 77%; specificity, 67%; Figure 2A) and 0.52 (sensitivity, 88%; specificity, 45%; Figure 2B), respectively.
TABLE 2.
Comparison of electrocardiographic parameters about P‐wave indices
| Parameters | All patients n = 75 | Worsen AT/AF burden n = 17 | Without worsen AT/AF burden n = 58 | P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PR interval, ms | 185.6 ± 43.3 | 188.9 ± 42.7 | 184.6 ± 43.8 | .709 |
| First‐degree atrioventricular block | 21 (28%) | 5 (29%) | 16 (28%) | .883 |
| P‐wave amplitude in V1, mV | 0.12 ± 0.06 | 0.11 ± 0.05 | 0.13 ± 0.06 | .305 |
| P‐wave amplitude in Ⅱ, mV | 0.13 ± 0.05 | 0.12 ± 0.05 | 0.13 ± 0.05 | .142 |
| PWD in V1, ms | 102.9 ± 23.4 | 106.6 ± 24.6 | 101.8 ± 23.2 | .326 |
| PWD in Ⅱ, ms | 105.1 ± 21.0 | 117.9 ± 19.9 | 101.3 ± 20.0 | .002 |
| PWDI in V1 | 0.57 ± 0.13 | 0.58 ± 0.14 | 0.57 ± 0.13 | .631 |
| PWDI in Ⅱ | 0.58 ± 0.13 | 0.65 ± 0.14 | 0.56 ± 0.12 | .014 |
Values are mean ± SD or number (percentage).
Abbreviations: AF, atrial fibrillation;#AT, atrial tachycardia; PWD, p‐wave duration; PWDI,#p‐wave duration index.
FIGURE 2.
(A) ROC curve of PWD in lead Ⅱ for worsening AF burden after pacemaker implantation. (B) ROC curve of PWDI in lead Ⅱ for worsening AF burden after pacemaker implantation. AF, atrial fibrillation; AUC, area under the curve; PWD, P‐wave duration; PWDI, P‐wave duration index; ROC, receiver‐operating characteristic
3.3. The predictors of worsening AF burden after pacemaker implantation
Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses revealed the predictors of worsening AF burden after pacemaker implantation. Univariate analysis showed that hypertension (hazard ratio [HR], 3.175; 95% confidence interval CI, 1.041‐9.677; P = .042, history of AF (HR, 6.532; 95% CI, 1.369‐31.180; P = .019), PWD in lead II ≥108 ms (HR, 6.671; 95% CI, 1.916‐23.229; P = .003), and AF burdens in first follow‐up visit (HR, 1.034; 95% CI, 1.006‐1.062; P = .017) were significantly associated with worsening AF burden (Table 3). PWDI was excluded from this analysis to eliminate confounding factors. In multivariate analysis, PWD in lead II ≥108 ms (HR, 5.395; 95% CI, 1.352‐21.523; P = .017) was an independent predictor of worsening AF burden (Table 4).
TABLE 3.
Univariate Cox regression analyses for worsening AT/AF burden after pacemaker implantation
| Parameters | Univariate analysis | |
|---|---|---|
| HR (95% CI) | P value | |
| Age | 1.11 (0.994‐1.239) | .063 |
| Male | 1.065 (0.355‐3.200) | .91 |
| Hypertension | 3.175 (1.041‐9.677) | .042 |
| Congestive heart failure | 2.242 (0.569‐8.832) | .249 |
| Diabetes mellitus | 2.97 (0.874‐10.085) | .081 |
| Chronic kidney disease | 2.271 (0.483‐10.678) | .299 |
| Stroke/TIA | 0.542 (0.061‐4.839) | .583 |
| History of AT/AF | 6.532 (1.369‐31.180) | .019 |
| BNP | 1 (0.991‐1.009) | .956 |
| eGFR | 0.982 (0.945‐1.020) | .344 |
| LVEF | 0.91 (0.845‐0.979) | .011 |
| LAD | 1.013 (0.912‐1.125) | .809 |
| LA volume index | 0.987 (0.948‐1.026) | .501 |
| E/e' | 0.972 (0.911‐1.038) | .398 |
| PR interval | 1.002 (0.991‐1.012) | .773 |
| First‐degree atrioventricular block | 1.173 (0.411‐3.348) | .766 |
| PWD in Ⅱ ≥108 ms | 6.671 (1.916‐23.229) | .003 |
| Atrial pacing ratio in first follow‐up visit | 1.000 (0.981‐1.020) | .969 |
| AF burdens in first follow‐up visit | 1.034 (1.006‐1.062) | .017 |
| Antiarrhythmic drug | 1.390 (0.710‐2.720) | .337 |
| ATP | 2.991 (0.930‐9.616) | 0.066 |
Abbreviations: AF, atrial fibrillation; AT, atrial tachycardia; ATP, antitachycardia pacing; BNP, brain natriuretic peptide; eGFR, estimated glomerular filtration rate; LA, left atrium; LAD, left atrial diameter; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; PWD P‐wave duration; TIA transient ischemic attack.
TABLE 4.
Multivariate Cox regression analyses for worsening AT/AF burden after pacemaker implantation
| Parameters | Multivariate analysis | |
|---|---|---|
| HR (95% CI) | P value | |
| Hypertension | 2.268 (0.510‐10.089) | .282 |
| History of AT/AF | 8.974 (0.940‐85.702) | .057 |
| LVEF | 0.972 (0.892‐1.059) | .518 |
| PWD in Ⅱ ≥108 ms | 6.528 (1.400‐30.429) | .017 |
| AF burdens in first follow‐up visit | 1.020 (0.988‐1.053) | .232 |
Abbreviations: AF, atrial fibrillation; AT, atrial tachycardia; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; PWD, P‐wave duration.
3.4. The association of PWD with worsening AF burden after pacemaker implantation
A Kaplan‐Meier analysis was performed to evaluate the event‐free rate of patients with worsening AF burden after pacemaker implantation. Patients with PWD in lead Ⅱ <108 ms exhibited a significantly higher event‐free rate than those with PWD in lead II ≥108 ms (81% vs 9%; P = .005; Figure 3).
FIGURE 3.
Kaplan‐Meier curves of the survival‐free rate of worsening AF burden after pacemaker implantation between the two groups (PWD in lead Ⅱ <108 ms; PWD in lead Ⅱ ≥108 ms). AF, atrial fibrillation; PWD, P‐wave duration
4. DISCUSSION
This study aimed to demonstrate the relationship between PWD and worsening AF burden in patients with SSS. The study found that prolonged PWD before pacemaker implantation was the most important independent predictor of worsening AF burden after the procedure.
ECG can be obtained noninvasively. Previous reports have shown that P‐wave indices such as the PR interval,11 P‐wave axis,12 and P‐wave terminal force in V113 are related to AF. The PWD is a noninvasive marker of AF recurrence after catheter ablation.9 Demirtas et al14 reported that a prolonged PWD was associated with the incidence of silent AF episodes in patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators. Several studies have reported a relationship between the PWD and worsening AF burden in patients with SSS. Kristensen et al15 and Padeletti et al16 reported that a prolonged PWD was predictor of AF after pacemaker implantation in patients with SSS. The results of our study are consistent with those of previous reports. However, the definition of AF in the current study differed from that in other studies. Kristensen et al15 defined AF as an atrial high rate and mode switching episode. Padeletti et al16 defined the outcome as AF‐related hospitalization and cardioversion. However, our study defined a worsening AF burden as an increase in the number of AF episodes, with each episode lasting ≥5.5 hour per day. This definition of worsening AF burden was the same as that in the TRENDS study.10 Thus, a prolonged PWD was a predictor of worsening AF burden and such patients may be at greater risk of thromboembolic events in the future. This conclusion differed from those of previous reports.
SSS patients with frequent AF episodes have an increased risk of worsening symptoms, heart failure, and stroke. Moreover, they receive antiarrhythmic drugs, pacemaker implantation, and catheter ablation as needed. In patients with pacemaker implantation, right ventricular pacing >40% was a risk factor for AF.17 Therefore, patients with SSS are programmed to minimize ventricular pacing after pacemaker implantation. In addition, right atrial septum pacing was associated with a lower risk of AF in SSS compared to right atrial appendage pacing.18 However, all patients in this study had a low percentage of ventricular pacing, and the atrial lead was placed at the right atrial appendage. Thus, the patient characteristics in terms of pacemaker operation and management did not significantly differ in this study population. We revealed that the PWD in lead Ⅱ was an independent predictor of worsening AF burden in patients with SSS. Based on this study's findings, we clarified the risk stratification of worsening AF burden before pacemaker implantation. This comes with the benefit of administering antiarrhythmic and anticoagulant therapy after the procedure. In this study, the percentage of patients who received antiarrhythmic drugs, catheter ablation, or programmed ATP was <30%. Aggressive antiarrhythmic and anticoagulant therapy can be administered in patients who are likely to develop worsening AF burden before pacemaker implantation.
P‐waves represent electrical conduction from the sinus node to the atrioventricular node and characterizes atrial depolarization. Moreover, PWD reflects intra‐atrial conduction time. Jadidi A et al19 reported that prolonged PWD was significantly associated with intra‐atrial conduction delay and advanced low‐voltage substrate of the left atrium. Therefore, prolonged PWD was related to electrical and structural remodeling. Electrical and structural remodeling of the atrium is a consequence of sustained AF. Atrial electrical remodeling is characterized by shortening of the atrial refractory period20 and fibrosis development,21 which are essential factors for initiating and maintaining AF. In patients with progressive atrial remodeling, the sinus rhythm was difficult to restore with antiarrhythmic drugs, electrical cardioversion, or catheter ablation. In this study, patients with prolonged PWD exhibited worsening AF burden during the follow‐up period. Patients with advanced intra‐atrial conduction delay tended to have a worsened AF burden despite antiarrhythmic therapy. This result suggested that the pathogenesis of prolonged PWD involved the progression of atrial remodeling. However, the patients in this study did not exhibit significant differences in echocardiographic parameters. Echocardiographic parameters, such as left atrial diameter and left atrial volume, reflect structural remodeling. One hypothesis is that the mechanism of electrical remodeling is separate from that of structural remodeling. The progression from paroxysmal to persistent AF is associated with progressive atrial remodeling, which leads to higher fibrillatory wave frequencies22 and enlargement of the left atrium size. Previous reports showed that atrial electrical remodeling developed quickly,23 but structural remodeling, resulting in the left atrium's enlargement, was sustained over a long period.24 In other words, the progression of atrial electrical remodeling occurs prior to extended structural remodeling. This study revealed that prolonged PWD was the most important predictor of worsening AF burden. This was consistent with previous studies. In patients with SSS, the PWD in lead Ⅱ was a useful marker for predicting the worsening of AF burden after pacemaker implantation.
This study had some limitations. First, this was a retrospective and single‐center study. The sample size was relatively small due to the study design and strict exclusion criteria. Additionally, patients whose PWD were not measured, such as patients with junctional rhythm and AF, were excluded from this study. Thus, the number of patients included was limited. However, we eliminated the influence of patient characteristics, such as the atrial lead position and percentage of atrial or ventricular pacing. Second, the measurement of P‐wave indices was performed manually. This limitation potentially affected the relationship between the value of PWD and the incidence rate of worsening AF burden. This possibly caused the low AUC values in the ROC curve analysis. Third, surface ECG in leads V1 and II were analyzed, but other surface ECG leads were not assessed in this study. However, previous studies that investigated the relationship between PWD and the occurrence of AF used lead Ⅱ.9, 14 The findings of this study were consistent with those of previous studies. Finally, we assessed atrial electrical remodeling from PWD in lead Ⅱ. However, we did not sufficiently evaluate structural remodeling effects, such as scars or the low‐voltage area in the left atrium. Enhanced MRI or voltage mapping of the atrium is required to reveal the relationship between electrical and structural remodeling.
5. CONCLUSION
This study demonstrated the relationship between PWD in lead Ⅱ and worsening AF burden after pacemaker implantation in patients with SSS. Prolonged PWD before pacemaker implantation was the most important independent predictor of worsening AF burden after the procedure. In patients with SSS, prolonged PWD can be a useful marker for predicting the worsening of AF burden after pacemaker implantation.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Authors declare no conflict of interests for this article.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
None
Murase Y, Imai H, Ogawa Y, Kano N, Mamiya K, Ikeda T, et al. Usefulness of P‐wave duration in patients with sick sinus syndrome as a predictor of atrial fibrillation. J Arrhythmia. 2021;37:1220–1226. 10.1002/joa3.12604
REFERENCES
- 1.Inoue H, Fujiki A, Origasa H, Ogawa S, Okumura K, Kubota I, et al. Prevalence of atrial fibrillation in the general population of Japan: an analysis based on periodic health examination. Int J Cardiol. 2009;137(2):102–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Kirchhof P, Benussi S, Kotecha D, Ahlsson A, Atar D, Casadei B, et al. 2016 ESC Guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation developed in collaboration with EACTS. Eur Heart J. 2016;37(38):2893–962. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Gómez‐Outes A, Lagunar‐Ruíz J, Terleira‐Fernández AI, Calvo‐Rojas G, Suárez‐Gea ML, Vargas‐Castrillón E. Causes of death in anticoagulated patients with atrial fibrillation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;68(23):2508–21. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Wong JA, Conen D, Van Gelder IC, McIntyre WF, Crijns HJ, Wang J, et al. Progression of device‐detected subclinical atrial fibrillation and the risk of heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;71(23):2603–11. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Perera KS, Sharma M, Connolly SJ, Wang J, Gold MR, Hohnloser SH, et al. Stroke type and severity in patients with subclinical atrial fibrillation: an analysis from the asymptomatic atrial fibrillation and stroke evaluation in pacemaker patients and the atrial fibrillation reduction atrial pacing trial (ASSERT). Am Heart J. 2018;201:160–3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Veasey RA, Arya A, Silberbauer J, Sharma V, Lloyd GW, Patel NR, et al. The relationship between right ventricular pacing and atrial fibrillation burden and disease progression in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: the long‐MinVPACE study. Europace. 2011;13(6):815–20. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Nattel S, Burstein B, Dobrev D. Atrial remodeling and atrial fibrillation: mechanisms and implications. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2008;1(1):62–73. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Nielsen JB, Kühl JT, Pietersen A, Graff C, Lind B, Struijk JJ, et al. P‐wave duration and the risk of atrial fibrillation: results from the copenhagen ECG study. Heart Rhythm. 2015;12(9):1887–95. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Kaypakli O, Koca H, Şahin DY, Okar S, Karataş F, Koç M. Association of P wave duration index with atrial fibrillation recurrence after cryoballoon catheter ablation. J Electrocardiol. 2018;51(2):182–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Glotzer TV, Daoud EG, Wyse DG, Singer DE, Ezekowitz MD, Hilker C, et al. The relationship between daily atrial tachyarrhythmia burden from implantable device diagnostics and stroke risk: the TRENDS study. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2009;2(5):474–80. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Alonso A, Krijthe BP, Aspelund T, Stepas KA, Pencina MJ, Moser CB, et al. Simple risk model predicts incidence of atrial fibrillation in a racially and geographically diverse population: the CHARGE‐AF consortium. J Am Heart Assoc. 2013;2(2):e000102. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Rangel MO, O'Neal WT, Soliman EZ. Usefulness of the electrocardiographic P‐wave axis as a predictor of atrial fibrillation. Am J Cardiol. 2016;117(1):100–4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Kanzaki Y, Inden Y, Ando M, Kamikubo Y, Ito T, Mizutani Y, et al. An ECG index of P‐wave force predicts the recurrence of atrial fibrillation after pulmonary vein isolation. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2016;39(11):1191–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Demirtas AO, Icen YK, Donmez Y, Koca H, Kaypakli O, Koc M. Silent atrial fibrillation is associated with P‐wave duration index in patients with cardiac resynchronisation therapy. Arch Med Sci Atheroscler Dis. 2019;27(4):e74–81. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Kristensen L, Nielsen JC, Mortensen PT, Christensen PD, Vesterlund T, Pedersen AK, et al. Sinus and paced P wave duration and dispersion as predictors of atrial fibrillation after pacemaker implantation in patients with isolated sick sinus syndrome. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2004;27(5):606–14. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Padeletti L, Santini M, Boriani G, Botto G, Ricci R, Spampinato A, et al. Duration of P‐wave is associated with atrial fibrillation hospitalizations in patients with atrial fibrillation and paced for bradycardia. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2007;30(8):961–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Sweeney MO, Hellkamp AS, Ellenbogen KA, Greenspon AJ, Freedman RA, Lee KL, et al. Adverse effect of ventricular pacing on heart failure and atrial fibrillation among patients with normal baseline QRS duration in a clinical trial of pacemaker therapy for sinus node dysfunction. Circulation. 2003;107(23):2932–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Verlato R, Botto GL, Massa R, Amellone C, Perucca A, Bongiorni MG, et al. Efficacy of low interatrial septum and right atrial appendage pacing for prevention of permanent atrial fibrillation in patients with sinus node disease: results from the electrophysiology‐guided pacing site selection (EPASS) study. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2011;4(6):844–50. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Jadidi A, Müller‐Edenborn B, Chen J, Keyl C, Weber R, Allgeier J, et al. The duration of the amplified sinus‐P‐wave identifies presence of left atrial low voltage substrate and predicts outcome after pulmonary vein isolation in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation. JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2018;4(4):531–43. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Wijffels MC, Kirchhof CJ, Dorland R, Allessie MA. Atrial fibrillation begets atrial fibrillation. A study in awake chronically instrumented goats. Circulation. 1995;92(7):1954–68. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Li D, Fareh S, Leung TK, Nattel S. Promotion of atrial fibrillation by heart failure in dogs: atrial remodeling of a different sort. Circulation. 1999;100(1):87–95. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Haissaguerre M, Lim KT, Jacquemet V, Rotter M, Dang L, Hocini M, et al. Atrial fibrillatory cycle length: computer simulation and potential clinical importance. Europace. 2007;9(Supplement 6):vi64–70. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Goette A, Honeycutt C, Langberg JJ. Electrical remodeling in atrial fibrillation. Circulation. 1996;94(11):2968–74. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Wozakowska‐Kapłon B. Changes in left atrial size in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation: a prospective echocardiographic study with a 5‐year follow‐up period. Int J Cardiol. 2005;101(1):47–52. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]