This study tested the relationship between left atrial (LA) function parameters and the results of pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Consecutive patients undergoing PVI for the first time between 2019 and 2021 were included. Patients underwent radiofrequency ablation using contact force catheters and an electroanatomical system. Follow-up consisted of ambulatory visits/televisits and 7-day Holter monitoring (at 6 and 12 months after ablation). On the day of ablation, all patients underwent transesophageal and transthoracic echocardiography with LA strain analysis. The primary endpoint was atrial tachyarrhythmia recurrence during the follow-up period. Of 221 patients, 22 did not meet the echocardiographic quality criteria, leaving 199 patients. The median follow-up period was 12 months, and 12 patients were lost to follow-up. Recurrences were observed in 67 patients (35.8%) after a mean of 1.06 procedures per patient. The patients were divided into a sinus rhythm (SR, n = 109) group and an AF (n = 90) group based on their cardiac rhythm at the time of echocardiography. In the SR group, univariable analysis showed that LA reservoir strain, LA appendage emptying velocity (LAAV), and LA volume index predicted AF recurrence, with only LAAV being significant in the multivariable analysis. In AF patients, univariable analysis revealed no LA strain parameters predicting AF recurrence.

Introduction: How wide the encircling line is made may influence the outcomes of pulmonary vein isolation (PVI). In the present study we hypothesised that the distance between the lines encircling the pulmonary veins may correspond with the extent of wide antral circumferential ablation (WACA). The aim of the study was to assess the impact of the distance and the area between the lines on the posterior wall of the left atrium on first-pass isolation rate and 12-month freedom from atrial arrhythmia in patients undergoing PVI ablation. Methods and results: One hundred sixteen patients underwent circumferential ablation index (AI)-guided PVI. The distance between the encircling ablation lines was measured off-line between the uppermost points (right and left) and the lowest points and as the area between the encircling lines on the posterior wall. The first-pass isolation rate and 12-month freedom from atrial arrhythmia were 59% and 73%, respectively. Distance between the encircling lines measured linearly or as the area of the posterior wall, assessed as direct values or indexed to left atrial dimensions, did not differ between patients with and without first-pass isolation or between patients with and without recurrences of atrial arrhythmia. Conclusions: The distance between the ablation lines did not influence the rate of first-pass isolation and arrhythmia recurrence in the long-term follow-up after PVI procedures incorporating the ablation index protocol.

Background: Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) may be caused by various factors. The etiology of HFrEF may influence prognosis and further management. Objectives: In this study we aimed to assess differences between ischemic and non-ischemic etiology in the context of clinical features, hemodynamic evaluation, and left ventricular (LV) and left atrial (LA) remodeling in a selected cohort of patients referred for device implantation. Methods: This prospective single-center study included 86 patients with HFrEF in sinus rhythm, without a history of atrial fibrillation, referred for ICD or CRT implantation. All patients underwent comprehensive echocardiography, electrocardiography, impedance cardiography and laboratory testing. This was a cross-sectional analysis without clinical follow-up. The pre-specified question was whether the two etiological groups differed in LV remodeling and LA function. All regression analyses were exploratory. Guideline-directed medical therapy was recorded in all patients. Results: Among 86 patients, 58 had ischemic and 28 had non-ischemic HFrEF. Patients with ischemic etiology were older, had worse renal function, and had higher N-terminal pro–B-type natriuretic peptide levels. They also exhibited lower left ventricular mass index (LVMI), left atrial reservoir strain (LASr), left atrial emptying fraction (LAEF), and higher left atrial stiffness index (LASI). Among myocardial work parameters, only global wasted work (GWW) differed significantly, with higher values in the non-ischemic group. Patients with ischemic HFrEF also had a higher Heather index (HI) in impedance cardiography. The two groups did not differ in guideline-directed medical therapy. In univariable logistic regression, older age, lower LVMI, reduced LASr and LAEF, higher LASI, higher HI, and lower eGFR were associated with ischemic HFrEF etiology. In the multivariable model, older age, lower LVMI, and reduced LASr remained independently associated with ischemic HFrEF (area under the ROC curve 0.82). Conclusions: Patients with ischemic and non-ischemic HFrEF referred for device implantation differ in LV remodeling and LA function. The between-group differences were small in absolute terms, with widely overlapping distributions, and the study was not designed to test whether echocardiography can replace established methods of establishing HFrEF etiology. These exploratory findings are hypothesis-generating and require confirmation in larger, independent cohorts.