Exercise stress echocardiography detects patients with paroxysmal/persistent atrial fibrillation

• Published in: European heart journal Vol. 45; no. Supplement_1
• Main Authors: Zagatina, A, Ciampi, Q, Vazquez, J P, Begidova, I, Padang, R, Boshchenko, A, Merli, E, Rodriguez-Zanella, H, Kobal, S, Agoston, G, Varga, A, Wierzbowska-Drabik, K, Arbucci, R, Pellikka, P A, Picano, E
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: 28.10.2024
• ISSN: 0195-668X; 1522-9645
• DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehae666.302

Abstract Background Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most prevalent atrial tachyarrhythmia, affecting an estimated 2-4% of adults worldwide. AF is a well-recognized and treatable risk factor for stroke, but it often remains asymptomatic or subclinical, leading to underdiagnosis. This study aimed to identify distinguishing signs during exercise stress echocardiography (ESE) among patients in sinus rhythm (SR), with and without history of paroxysmal/persistent AF (PAF). Methods An international prospective cohort comprising 1035 consecutive patients was initially considered from 12 cardiology institutions. These patients were referred for clinically-driven ESE as part of the Stress Echo 2020-2030 study network. All patients underwent comprehensive ESE with the ABCDE protocol, which included assessment of B-lines, left ventricle contractile reserve (LVCR), ECG-based heart rate reserve (HRR), LV ejection fraction (EF), LV end-diastolic volume, E/e’, pulmonary artery systolic pressure estimation, tricuspid annular plane sytolic excursion (TAPSE), left atrium volume index (LAVi) and left atrium reservoir phase strain (LASr) at rest and with exercise. Results After excluding 89 patients who were in AF during the ESE, 946 patients in SR were included as the main study cohort (101 with and 845 without a history of PAF). A scoring system was then constructed using all independent variables that differentiate the two groups (those with and without history of PAF). Presence of systemic hypertension, rest LAVI>31ml/m2, rest |LASr|< 21%, stress LAVI >29 ml/m2, stress |LASr| <24%, stress E/e’ >7, ∆TAPSE <4.5 mm, HRR<1.87, and LVCR<1.6 were identified as the discriminators between patients with and without PAF. The composite score, summing all 9 items (with a total score range from 0 to 9), yielded a score of >4 as the best balance between sensitivity (87%) and specificity (60%) in predicting those with PAF. The receiver operating characteristic curve analysis of the scoring model showed an AUC of 0.79 (p-value <0.0001), Figure. Conclusion ESE evaluation can be a valuable adjunct for identifying patients in SR with history of PAF. This multifaceted approach enhances the potential for more accurate detection and clinical management of individuals in SR at risk for AF, who could be considered for aggressive monitoring programs to prevent the development of new onset AF and subsequent increase in cardiovascular risk.