Association of Atrial Tissue Fibrosis Identified By Delayed Enhancement MRI and Atrial Fibrillation Catheter Ablation: The DECAAF Study

OBJECTIVES: Left atrial fibrosis is prominent in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Extensive atrial tissue fibrosis identified by delayed enhancement magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has been associated with poor outcomes of AF catheter ablation. The objective is to characterize the feasibility of atrial tissue fibrosis estimation by delayed enhancement MRI and its association with subsequent AF ablation outcome.

METHODS: Multicenter, prospective, observational cohort study of patients diagnosed with paroxysmal and persistent AF (undergoing their first catheter ablation) conducted between August 2010 and August 2011 at 15 centers in the United States, Europe, and Australia. Delayed enhancement MRI images were obtained up to 30 days before ablation. Fibrosis quantification was performed at a core laboratory blinded to the participating center, ablation approach, and procedure outcome. Fibrosis blinded to the treating physicians was categorized as stage 1 (<10% of the atrial wall), 2 (≥10%-<20%), 3 (≥20%-<30%), and 4 (≥30%). Patients were followed up for recurrent arrhythmia per current guidelines using electrocardiography or ambulatory monitor recording and results were analyzed at a core laboratory. Cumulative incidence of recurrence was estimated by stage at days 325 and 475 after a 90-day blanking period (standard time allowed for arrhythmias related to ablation-induced inflammation to subside) and the risk of recurrence was estimated (adjusting for 10 demographic and clinical covariates).

RESULTS: Atrial tissue fibrosis estimation by delayed enhancement MRI was successfully quantified in 272 of 329 enrolled patients (57 patients [17%] were excluded due to poor MRI quality). There were 260 patients who were followed up after the blanking period (mean [SD] age of 59.1 [10.7] years, 31.5% female, 64.6% with paroxysmal AF). For recurrent arrhythmia, the unadjusted overall hazard ratio per 1% increase in left atrial fibrosis was 1.06 (95% CI, 1.03-1.08; P < .001). Estimated unadjusted cumulative incidence of recurrent arrhythmia by day 325 for stage 1 fibrosis was 15.3% (95% CI, 7.6%-29.6%); stage 2, 32.6% (95% CI, 24.3%-42.9%); stage 3, 45.9% (95% CI, 35.5%-57.5%); and stage 4, 51.1% (95% CI, 32.8%-72.2%) and by day 475 was 15.3% (95% CI, 7.6%-29.6%), 35.8% (95% CI, 26.2%-47.6%), 45.9% (95% CI, 35.6%-57.5%), and 69.4% (95% CI, 48.6%-87.7%), respectively. Similar results were obtained after covariate adjustment. The addition of fibrosis to a recurrence prediction model that includes traditional clinical covariates resulted in an improved predictive accuracy with the C statistic increasing from 0.65 to 0.69 (risk difference of 0.05; 95% CI, 0.01-0.09).

CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with AF undergoing catheter ablation, atrial tissue fibrosis estimated by delayed enhancement MRI was independently associated with likelihood of recurrent arrhythmia. The clinical implications of this association warrant further investigation. Eli Harold Authentic Jersey

PMID: 24496537

Posted in * Journal Club Selections, Magnetic Resonance Imaging and tagged , , , , .

3 Comments

  1. Do the authors specify the spatial resolution of the MRI sequence and the average thickness of the LA wall?

  2. Interesting paper, but some significant questions were raised during our review:
    – The explanation of how fibrosis was quantified is not 100% satisfactory. What does relative enhancement means? Is it decided by SD from the mean? How was that method designed?
    – How come no patients had 0% delayed enhancement? Is it related to the ‘relative enhancement’ quantification method?

    While an interesting concept, there seems like there are flaws on the method to measure LA wall fibrosis. Also, the conclusion that states that “…the degree of LA wall fibrosis estimated by delayed enhancement MRI has the potential to offer a noninvasive and effective method in determining which patients with AF are likely to benefit from ablation while avoiding performing procedures in patients likely to have arrhythmia recurrence” seems very premature. A randomized blinded study needs to be performed before such a conclusion can be reached.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *