Selvester QRS score predicts improvement of LVEF in atrial fibrillation patients with systolic heart failure.

Background: Left‐ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) comorbid with atrial fibrillation is reversible, but recovery is limited in a subset of patients. The Selvester QRS (S‐QRS) score is an electrocardiogram‐based assessment that reportedly reflects myocardial scar/damage. We evaluated the predic...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Pacing & Clinical Electrophysiology Vol. 45; no. 5; pp. 619 - 629
Autores principales: Nomura, Yoshihiro, Harada, Masahide, Motoike, Yuji, Nishimura, Asuka, Koshikawa, Masayuki, Ito, Takehiro, Sobue, Yoshihiro, Kitagawa, Fumihiko, Watanabe, Eiichi, Ozaki, Yukio, Izawa, Hideo
Formato: diagnostic images research tables/charts tracings Journal Article
Publicado: Wiley-Blackwell May2022
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
Descripción
Sumario:Background: Left‐ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) comorbid with atrial fibrillation is reversible, but recovery is limited in a subset of patients. The Selvester QRS (S‐QRS) score is an electrocardiogram‐based assessment that reportedly reflects myocardial scar/damage. We evaluated the predictability of S‐QRS score for the recovery of left‐ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in persistent AF (PeAF) patients with LVSD undergoing catheter ablation (CA). Method: CA was performed in 51 PeAF patients with reduced LVEF (<40%); S‐QRS scores were measured after restoration of sinus rhythm. LVEF was re‐evaluated at one year after CA; LVEF recovery was related to the S‐QRS score. Results: The median [interquartile range] S‐QRS score was 1 point [0–2]. LVEF increased from 32% [28–37] at baseline to 56% [49–57] at 1 year after CA. Thirty‐seven patients achieved normalization of LVEF (≥50%, Group A); 14 patients did not (Group B). Group A had significantly lower S‐QRS scores than Group B (0 point [0–2] vs. 2 points [2–3], p <.05). In univariate/multivariate analyses, S‐QRS score was an independent predictor of LVEF normalization. In the receiver operating characteristic curve, the cut‐off value of S‐QRS score was 2 points for prediction of the LVEF normalization (AUC = 0.79). Patients with low S‐QRS score (<2 points) had greater LVEF improvement than those with high S‐QRS score (≥2 points, ΔLVEF: 23% [17–28] vs. 17% [12–24], p <.05). Conclusion: S‐QRS scoring noninvasively assesses the improvement of LVEF in PeAF patients with LVSD after CA. A high S‐QRS score may indicate underlying myocardial scar/damage associated with unknown etiologies for LVSD other than PeAF.