Next Article in Journal
Angle of Uterine Flexion and Adenomyosis
Next Article in Special Issue
Fifteen-Year Differences in Indications for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy in International Guidelines—Insights from the Heart Failure Registries of the European Society of Cardiology
Previous Article in Journal
Decreased Adiponectin Levels in Early Pregnancy Are Associated with High Risk of Prematurity for African American Women
Previous Article in Special Issue
Prevalence of Arrhythmia in Adults after Fontan Operation
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Sinus Node Dysfunction after Successful Atrial Flutter Ablation during Follow-Up: Clinical Characteristics and Predictors

1
Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei 11217, Taiwan
2
Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei 112304, Taiwan
3
Cardiovascular Center, Taichung Veterans General Hospital, Taichung 40705, Taiwan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11(11), 3212; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11113212
Submission received: 15 May 2022 / Revised: 1 June 2022 / Accepted: 2 June 2022 / Published: 4 June 2022

Abstract

:
Identification of sinus node dysfunction (SND) before termination of persistent AFL by catheter ablation (CA) is challenging. This study aimed to investigate the characteristics and predictors of acute and delayed SND after AFL ablation. We retrospectively enrolled 221 patients undergoing CA of persistent AFL in a tertiary referral center. Patients with SND who required a temporary pacemaker (TPM) after termination of AFL or a permanent pacemaker (PPM) during follow-up were identified. Acute SND requiring a TPM was found in 14 of 221 (6.3%) patients following successful termination of AFL. A total of 10 of the 14 patients (71.4%) recovered from acute SND. An additional 11 (5%) patients presenting with delayed SND required a PPM during follow-up, including 4 patients recovering from acute SND. Of these, 9 of these 11 patients (81.8%) underwent PPM implantation within 1 year after the ablation. In multivariable analysis, female gender and a history of hypothyroidism were associated with the requirement for a TPM following termination of persistent AFL, while older age and a history of hypothyroidism predicted PPM implantation. This study concluded that the majority of patients with acute SND still require a PPM implantation despite the initial improvement. Therefore, it is reasonable to monitor the patients closely for at least one year after AFL ablation.

1. Introduction

Atrial flutter (AFL), a common atrial tachyarrhythmia, includes both typical and atypical forms. Radiofrequency catheter ablation (CA) has been implemented to terminate AFL with promising results [1]. However, sinus node dysfunction (SND) may coexist in patients with AFL. The presence of SND can become notable after termination of AFL, and a pacemaker may be required [2,3]. Detection of SND before termination of AFL is clinically challenging. At present, there are limited studies investigating the predictors or risk factors for SND following termination of AFL.
Sinus node inactivity caused by atrial tachyarrhythmias might be reversed following successful CA, and then the acute SND could recover. However, even without acute SND or after the recovery of SND following AFL ablation, sinus node function may still deteriorate in some patients during follow-up. It is a dilemma to determine the duration of observation in patients with acute SND after termination of persistent AFL and the exact time for permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation.
Therefore, our study aimed to examine clinical characteristics and predictors of acute and delayed SND after successful elimination of persistent AFL, including typical and atypical forms.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Population

We retrospectively enrolled patients with persistent AFL, including typical and/or atypical AFL, who underwent CA at Taipei Veterans General Hospital between January 2014 and January 2020. The “persistent” AFL was defined as tachycardia lasting for more than 7 days, whilst long-standing persistent AFL was defined as sustained AFL for more than 12 months. Patients who had previously received AFL ablation or had a PPM implantation before the AFL ablation were excluded. Meanwhile, patients who had previously undergone ablation for other types of arrhythmias were still eligible. The Institutional Review Board of Taipei Veterans General Hospital approved this study in accordance with Good Clinical Practice Guidelines.

2.2. Baseline Patient Characteristics

Patients’ demographics and preprocedural comorbidities are included in the database, such as age, body mass index, coronary artery disease, valvular heart disease, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, chronic kidney disease, history of transient ischemic attack or stroke, hyperthyroidism, hypothyroidism, and atrial fibrillation. Additionally, the pharmacological history one year before and after the ablation, including beta-blockers, non-dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers, propafenone, and amiodarone, was documented.
The pre-procedural echocardiography was reviewed, and we recorded parameters including left atrial (LA) and right atrial (RA) diameter, LA and RA area, left ventricular ejection fraction, left ventricular hypertrophy, as well as moderate and severe mitral/tricuspid regurgitation. The minor-axis RA diameter, LA, and RA area were all measured by the 4-chamber view at end-systole according to recommendations from the American Society of Echocardiography. The 12-lead electrocardiography and ambulatory electrocardiography monitoring records within one year before the ablation were reviewed. If neither of these records revealed a sinus rhythm, the patient was classified with a “long-standing persistent AFL”. Otherwise, the last recorded heart rate in sinus rhythm would be identified. Furthermore, the QRS duration prior to ablation was analyzed.

2.3. Electrophysiological Study and Catheter Ablation

Each patient signed an informed consent form. A standard electrophysiological study and CA were conducted for AFL. A decapolar catheter with an interelectrode spacing of 2-5-2 mm was inserted into the coronary sinus, with the proximal bipole located at the ostium. In our study, typical AFL was defined by the cavotricuspid isthmus (CTI) dependence and was confirmed if concealed entrainment was identified when pacing the CTI and if the difference between post-pacing interval at the CTI and flutter cycle length was within 30 ms. The other AFLs would be classified as an atypical form. Before CA, the flutter cycle length was measured at the proximal coronary sinus.
We have previously described in detail the electrophysiological study, mapping, and ablation strategies for AFL [4]. Ablation of the CTI was performed for persistent typical flutter, while linear ablation of the isthmus, which was identified by either 3D electroanatomic activation mapping or entrainment, was used for atypical flutter. Pulmonary vein isolation and/or other ablation strategies were based on patients’ clinical presentation and physicians’ discretion. Conduction block in both directions was confirmed simultaneously with the ablation line. In our laboratory, formal sinus node function testing was not routinely performed during AFL ablation.

2.4. Post-Ablation Follow-Up and Pacemaker Implantation

In the present study, we routinely arranged a 12-lead ECG 2 weeks after ablation at the outpatient clinic and the 24-h Holter monitoring 3 months later. If the patient was symptomatic, additional ECG, 24-h Holter monitoring, or a 7-day event recorder was arranged on a case-by-case basis to detect the recurrence of arrhythmias or post-ablation conduction system disorder.
SND is defined as a persistent condition associated with at least one of the following: (1) pronounced sinus bradycardia with a heart rate of fewer than 50 beats per minute, (2) junctional bradycardia, or (3) repeated sinus pauses longer than 3 s, (4) hemodynamic instability or symptoms related to bradycardia or sinus pause, and (5) sinus node recovery time (SNRT) > 1500 ms or corrected sinus node recovery time (CSNRT) > 550 ms.
In our study, we defined an acute SND as one that occurred following the elimination of AFL or in the same hospitalization. A new or recurrent SND during follow-up in an outpatient clinic was classified as a “delayed SND”. Patients receiving either a temporary pacemaker (TPM) or a PPM implantation for SND after AFL ablation were identified. In these cases, we explored the duration of TPM back-up, the time interval between the ablation and the PPM implantation, the pacing modes of the PPM, and the averaged percentage of atrial pacing during follow-up.

2.5. Statistical Analysis

The normally distributed continuous variables are presented as means ± standard deviations, and the non-normally distributed continuous variables are presented as medians with 25 and 75% interquartile ranges (IQRs). Wilcoxon signed-rank test (Mann–Whitney U test) or Student’s T-test was used to compare the differences between groups. The categorical variables are expressed as numbers and percentages and compared using the Chi-square test. A p-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant. In this study, logistic regression analysis was used to determine the association between variables and acute SND that required a TPM, and Cox regression analysis was used to determine the predictors of delayed SND that required a PPM implantation after successful AFL ablation during long-term follow-up. The parameters with a p-value < 0.05 in the univariable regression analysis were selected for the multivariable model. A Kaplan–Meier survival curve was plotted to determine event-free survival, with the statistical significance examined using the Log-rank test. The statistical analyses were conducted using IBM Corporation’s Statistical Package for the Social Sciences version 22.0 (Armonk, NY, USA).

3. Results

3.1. Patient Selection, Characteristics of Atrial Flutter, and Catheter Ablation

A total of 245 patients underwent AFL ablation in our tertiary referral center during the study period. After excluding 24 patients, 221 patients were included in the study. As shown in Supplementary Tables S1 and S2, all patients had clinically documented AFL for more than 7 days, and 104 (47.1%) patients had a long-standing persistent AFL. A total of 103 patients (46.6%) with concomitant clinically documented AF were enrolled. A total of 168 (76.0%) patients took at least 1 antiarrhythmic drug before ablation. In our electrophysiological laboratory, 177 (80.1%) patients were diagnosed with counterclockwise typical AFL, 22 (10.0%) patients with clockwise typical flutter, and 55 (24.9%) patients with atypical AFL. Regarding the ablation procedure, CTI ablation, pulmonary vein isolation, peri-superior vena cava (SVC) ablation, and bi-atrial ablation were performed in 204, 21, 5, and 23 patients, respectively. After a median follow-up period of 5.0 months (25–75% IQR: 0.7–6.5 months), AFL recurred in 19 patients (8.6%). A total of 6 patients (2.7%) received a repeat procedure of AFL ablation.

3.2. Clinical Characteristics of Sinus Node Dysfunction

Acute SND requiring a TPM was identified in 14 (6.3%) patients following termination of AFL (Figure 1). Additionally, 4 patients (28.6%) had unrecoverable SND and required implantation of a PPM 3.5 days (25–75% IQR: 0.8–4.0 days) after ablation. For the other 10 patients who recovered from the acute SND, all TPMs were removed successfully within 5 days, and in the majority (8 out of 10, 80%) within 2 days (Table 1). After a median follow-up period of 4.2 months (25–75% IQR: 3.9–8.0 months), 4 of the 14 patients (28.6%) developed delayed SND. In total, 8 of the 14 patients (57.1%) with acute SND underwent implantation of a PPM. Before catheter ablation for the 14 patients with acute SND, dizziness, fatigue, and syncope were documented in 4, 1, and 1 patient(s), respectively. Among these 6 patients, the acute SND was resolved in 4 patients. However, 2 of them developed subsequent delayed SND requiring a PPM implantation. For the remaining 207 (93.7%) patients without acute SND, delayed SND requiring a PPM was found in 7 (3.4%) patients after a median follow-up period of 4.7 months (25–75% IQR: 1.6–11.9 months) (Figure 1).
In the 11 patients exhibiting delayed SND, most (9 out of 11, 81.8%) of the PPMs were implanted within one year following the ablation. Figure 2 shows the PPM-free survival curve after the ablation. After ablation, the cumulative incidence of delayed SND requiring a PPM implantation increased for several months after CA, almost reaching a plateau after 1 year. A total of 12 of the 15 patients underwent dual chamber mode (DDD) PPM implantation, while the remaining 3 underwent single chamber mode (VVI) PPM implantation. All the 8 PPMs implanted for patients with acute SND were in the DDD mode (Table 1). After the PPM implantation, 7 patients suffered from paroxysmal AF, and 3 had AFL recurrences. One patient underwent a repeat procedure for AFL ablation. For the 12 PPMs with DDD mode, after 2 weeks, 3 months, and 1 year following the implantation, the average percentage of atrial pacing was 58.2%, 56.0%, and 58.4%, respectively.

3.3. Predictors of Sinus Node Dysfunction

The baseline characteristics of patients with and without acute SND requiring a TPM are summarized in Supplementary Table S1, and those with and without delayed SND requiring a PPM are presented in Supplementary Table S2.
Based on the univariable logistic regression analysis, a female gender, a history of hypothyroidism, and an increased LA diameter assessed by transthoracic echocardiography were found to be significant predictors of acute SND requiring a TPM implantation after termination of AFL. The multivariable stepwise models showed that female gender and hypothyroidism were the independent predictors [p = 0.038, OR: 3.66, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.08–12.43; p = 0.045, OR: 8.80, 95% CI: 1.05–74.03, respectively] (Table 2).
Moreover, as a result of the univariable Cox proportional hazards regression analysis, older age and a history of hypothyroidism were significant predictors of delayed SND requiring a PPM implantation after AFL termination. In the stepwise multivariable model, both factors were independent predictors (p = 0.018, HR: 1.07, 95% CI: 1.01–1.13; p = 0.006, HR: 8.87, 95% CI: 1.89–41.72, respectively) (Table 3). Patients with older age and a history of hypothyroidism had higher rates of delayed SND requiring a PPM implantation during the follow-up after AFL ablation (Log-rank test, p = 0.045 and <0.001, respectively; Figure 3 and Figure 4).

4. Discussion

4.1. Major Findings

After successful elimination of the AFL, 14 (6.3%) patients required a TPM for acute SND. It should be noted that although some of them initially recovered from acute SND, 57.1% of patients eventually required a PPM. Irrespective of the absence or recovery of acute SND, 11 (5.0%) patients developed delayed SND requiring a PPM during follow-up, mostly within 1 year after ablation (9 out of 11, 81.8%). The underlying history of hypothyroidism and older age were both predictors of delayed SND.

4.2. The Mechanism of Sinus Node Dysfunction following Atrial Flutter Elimination

SND, historically referred to as sick sinus syndrome, is commonly caused by senescence of the sinoatrial node and surrounding atrial muscle. Most frequently, it is associated with atrial arrhythmias as part of the tachycardia–bradycardia syndrome (TBS) [2,3]. The mechanisms of TBS include alterations in myocardial architecture, ion channel metabolism, and gene expression [5,6,7]. Over the past decade, catheter ablation has advanced significantly, enabling a high proportion of AF and AFL to be completely eliminated [8,9,10]. Typically, SND will become apparent after atrial arrhythmias have been eliminated.
The second possible mechanism of SND following CA is an iatrogenic injury to the sinus node. During peri-SVC ablation for AF or AFL, direct damage to the sinus node has been reported, especially along the anterolateral free wall of the SVC [11,12]. Additionally, if the sinoatrial nodal artery is the only artery that supplies the sinus node, an injury to this artery may result in SND [13]. Given the anatomic consideration, occlusion of the sinoatrial nodal artery during LA anterior line ablation of perimetral flutter may result in SND [14,15]. Ozturk et al. found that ablation near the medial or posterior aspects of the LA appendage could also damage the sinoatrial nodal artery [16].
Some other studies, however, provided contradictory results. Deshmukh et al. demonstrated that the risk of SND after ablation is similar to cardioversion in patients with AF, suggesting that causality may be due to a common electrophysiologic substrate as opposed to the ablation process itself [17]. The present study provided evidence in support of these findings by demonstrating that no ablation site for AFL could significantly predict subsequent SND (Table 2 and Table 3). In addition, as shown in the supplementary Tables S1 and S2, 5 of 221 patients in our cohort underwent peri-SVC ablation, and none of them developed acute or delayed SND.

4.3. Characteristics of Acute and Delayed Sinus Node Dysfunction

SND has been reported to be reversed after the elimination of atrial tachyarrhythmias. It has been demonstrated in an animal model by Raitt MH et al. that electrical remodeling can be reversed following termination of persistent AF by cardioversion [18]. Several human studies have also demonstrated a reverse remodeling of sinus node function following CA for AF [7,19,20,21]. In contrast, Inada et al. found that SND progressed even after paroxysmal AF had been eliminated after a 5-year follow-up [22]. The discrepancy between these findings implies that acute SND observed after termination of AFL could recover in some patients, whereas sinus node function may still deteriorate during follow-up in patients without acute SND or after the recovery of the initial SND. Due to the variability and uncertainty of sinus node function following elimination of AFL, it is clinically challenging to determine the appropriate duration for observation and the time point for advancing to PPM implantation.
In the retrospective study by Song et al., 8% of patients developed acute SND after AFL ablation, but half of these cases were transient, and most of them improved within a day [23]. Furthermore, Semmler et al. reported that acute SND developed in 40 (3.2%) patients undergoing AF ablation. There were 37.5% of patients with acute SND of a transient nature, and all of their TPMs were removed within 2 days [24]. Similarly, in our study, 6.3% of patients had acute SND after AFL ablation. TPM was successfully removed in most of these cases within two days, except for one case on the third day and another case on the fifth day after ablation. Accordingly, for the recovery from SND, a reasonable period for observation would be around 1 week.
According to Song et al., the median time for PPM implantation after AFL ablation was 20.5 days (25–75% IQR: 15.25 to 38.25 days), although 1 patient had PPM implantation 1 year and 7 months after CA [23]. In Kim et al.’s study, 121 patients underwent CA for AF with TBS, and 11 patients (9.1%) received PPM within a median period of 21 months after CA [25]. There was a wide variation between the times of ablation and the times for PPM implantation. Moreover, we observed in the present study that most PPMs for delayed SND were implanted several months after AFL ablation and gradually plateaued after 1 year. It is a reasonable and safe policy to closely monitor for delayed SND for at least one year after AFL ablation, especially in patients with a high risk of SND.
Skjøth F et al. found that PPM was implanted more frequently following AFL ablation than AF ablation in a nationwide cohort study [26]. As indicated above, this finding appears to be consistent with a comparison of the present study with those mentioned. Furthermore, patients with AFL tend to experience a shorter interval between catheter ablation and PPM implantation than those with AF. Possible explanations for the above findings may be related to the different remodeling of the heart. Medi C et al. reported that right atrial remodeling was more advanced in patients with AFL as compared with patients with AF [27]. It may lead to a higher degree of SND and the early requirement of PPM after AFL ablation.

4.4. Predictors of Sinus Node Dysfunction following Atrial Flutter Termination

In previous studies, several risk factors or predictors of SND after termination of AF have been reported, including older age, a female gender, a low preprocedural ventricular rate, and a large left atrium [24,28,29,30,31,32]. The present study found that age, female gender, and the underlying history of hypothyroidism were predictive of SND after AFL ablation. SND is associated with senescence of the sinoatrial node and surrounding atrial myocardium, and this phenomenon is frequently accompanied by the process of aging. As demonstrated both in the present study as well as in previous studies, older age can serve as a predictor for SND following termination of atrial tachyarrhythmias [17,24,28]. Moreover, Sairaku et al. reported that female gender was an independent predictor of SND requiring a PPM in cases of persistent typical flutter [33], and higher rates of SND and PPM implantation have also been reported after AF ablation in female patients [17,28], which was consistent with our findings.
Thyroid hormones are both inotropic and chronotropic by multiple mechanisms, including the regulation of the sympathetic nervous system and ion channels [34]. For the comprehensive investigation of the relationship between thyroid hormone deficiency and SND, we checked the medical history and laboratory data of the 5 patients with hypothyroidism in our cohort. All these 5 patients had been under thyroxine supplements, but 2 of them developed delayed SND after recovery from acute SND (Supplementary Tables S1 and S2). The thyroid function test showed euthyroid in 1 case but still hypothyroid in the other during the peri- and post-ablation period before PPM implantation. Thyroxine deficiency might not be the only contributor to the SND in hypothyroidism, and it requires further studies to determine the reversibility of cardiac remodeling and sinus node function after thyroxine supplementation. Despite the identified risk factors, given the small number of patients with SND following AFL termination, future validation is necessary.

4.5. Strengths and Limitations

This is, to the best of our knowledge, the first analysis of the predictors, characteristics, and prognosis of acute and delayed SND following ablation for persistent AFL, including typical and atypical forms, as well as the clinical application of TPM and PPM.
Nevertheless, there are some limitations to this study. The retrospective design of this study results in some inevitable biases. Additionally, we excluded patients with severe atrioventricular nodal dysfunction, which might have confounded the primary endpoint of SND. Furthermore, the cause of SND may be multifactorial, and it is difficult to clearly clarify the etiology in most of our patients. A previous study used computed tomography to assess the post-ablation sinus nodal artery injury [13], but we did not perform it routinely for our cohort. Thus, it is difficult to evaluate the confounding effect of the causes of SND on the outcomes. Finally, the sample size was small, and the follow-up period was short. Further large-scale studies are needed to determine the long-term incidence and prognosis of SND. We, however, believe that the current findings can not only optimize the pre-procedural risk stratification but also serve as guidance for short-term and long-term management for patients with SND following ablation.

5. Conclusions

The TPM was required for acute SND in 6.3% of patients after the elimination of the AFL. Despite initially recovering from acute SND, 57.1% of patients with acute SND eventually required a PPM. It should also be noted that irrespective of the absence or recovery of acute SND, 5.0% of patients developed delayed SND requiring a PPM during follow-up, mostly within 1 year after ablation. An observation period of at least one year after AFL ablation is reasonable.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/jcm11113212/s1, Table S1: Comparison of baseline characteristics between patients with and without acute SND requiring a TPM after AFL termination; Table S2: Comparison of baseline characteristics of patients with and without delayed SND requiring a PPM after AFL termination.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, F.-P.C. and T.-F.C.; methodology, S.-L.C.; software, Y.-F.H. and C.-M.L.; validation, S.-H.L., Y.-J.L. and W.-H.C.; formal analysis, G.-Y.L.; investigation, T.-C.T.; resources, J.-N.L.; data curation, T.-Y.C.; writing—original draft preparation, G.-Y.L.; writing—review and editing, L.K.; visualization, C.-I.W.; supervision, L.-W.L.; project administration, S.-A.C.; funding acquisition, F.-P.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology (grant numbers MOST 109-2314-B-075-075-MY3, MOST 109-2314-B-010-058-MY2, MOST 109-2314-B-075-074-MY3, MOST 109-2314-B-075-076-MY3, MOST 107-2314-B-010-061-MY2, MOST 106-2314-B-075-006-MY3, MOST 106-2314-B-010-046-MY3, and MOST 106-2314-B-075-073-MY3), Research Foundation of Cardiovascular Medicine, Szu-Yuan Research Foundation of Internal Medicine, and Taipei Veterans General Hospital (grant numbers V106C-158, V106C-104, V107C-060, V107C-054, V109C-113, V110C-116, and V111C-159).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board of Taipei Veterans General Hospital (2021-09-007CC, 18 September 2021).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are not publicly available due to upcoming publications but are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Hindricks, G.; Potpara, T.; Dagres, N.; Arbelo, E.; Bax, J.J.; Blomström-Lundqvist, C.; Boriani, G.; Castella, M.; Dan, G.-A.; Dilaveris, P.E.; et al. 2020 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of atrial fibrillation developed in collaboration with the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS): The Task Force for the diagnosis and management of atrial fibrillation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Developed with the special contribution of the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) of the ESC. Eur. Heart J. 2021, 42, 373–498. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  2. Short, D.S. The syndrome of alternating bradycardia and tachycardia. Br. Heart J. 1954, 16, 208–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Rubenstein, J.J.; Schulman, C.L.; Yurchak, P.M.; DeSanctis, R.W. Clinical spectrum of the sick sinus syndrome. Circulation 1972, 46, 5–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Tai, C.T.; Chen, S.A. Electrophysiological mechanisms of atrial flutter. Indian Pacing Electrophysiol. J. 2006, 6, 119–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Yeh, Y.H.; Burstein, B.; Qi, X.Y.; Sakabe, M.; Chartier, D.; Comtois, P.; Wang, Z.; Kuo, C.T.; Nattel, S. Funny current downregulation and sinus node dysfunction associated with atrial tachyarrhythmia: A molecular basis for tachycardia-bradycardia syndrome. Circulation 2009, 119, 1576–1585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Sanders, P.; Morton, J.B.; Kistler, P.M.; Davidson, N.C.; Hussin, A.; Spence, S.J.; Lindsay, C.B.; Vohra, J.K.; Sparks, P.B.; Kalman, J.M. Electrophysiological and electroanatomic characterization of the atria in sinus node disease: Evidence of diffuse atrial remodeling. Circulation 2004, 109, 1514–1522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Jackson, L.R., 2nd; Rathakrishnan, B.; Campbell, K.; Thomas, K.L.; Piccini, J.P.; Bahnson, T.; Stiber, J.A.; Daubert, J.P. Sinus Node Dysfunction and Atrial Fibrillation: A Reversible Phenomenon? Pacing Clin. Electrophysiol. 2017, 40, 442–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. O’Neill, L.; Wielandts, J.-Y.; Gillis, K.; Hilfiker, G.; Waroux, J.-B.L.P.D.; Tavernier, R.; Duytschaever, M.; Knecht, S. Catheter Ablation in Persistent AF, the Evolution towards a More Pragmatic Strategy. J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10, 4060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. McCarthy, P.M.; Cox, J.L.; Kislitsina, O.N.; Kruse, J.; Churyla, A.; Malaisrie, S.C.; Mehta, C.K. Surgery and Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation: History, Current Practice, and Future Directions. J. Clin. Med. 2021, 11, 210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Kaba, R.A.; Momin, A.; Camm, J. Persistent Atrial Fibrillation: The Role of Left Atrial Posterior Wall Isolation and Ablation Strategies. J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10, 3129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Chen, G.; Dong, J.Z.; Liu, X.P.; Zhang, X.Y.; Long, D.Y.; Sang, C.H.; Ning, M.; Tang, R.B.; Jiang, C.X.; Ma, C.S. Sinus node injury as a result of superior vena cava isolation during catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter. Pacing Clin. Electrophysiol. 2011, 34, 163–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Killu, A.M.; Fender, E.A.; Deshmukh, A.J.; Munger, T.M.; Araoz, P.; Brady, P.A.; Packer, U.L.; Friedman, P.A.; Mulpuru, S.K.; Cha, Y.-M.; et al. Acute Sinus Node Dysfunction after Atrial Ablation: Incidence, Risk Factors, and Management. Pacing Clin. Electrophysiol. 2016, 39, 1116–1125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Barra, S.; Gopalan, D.; Baran, J.; Fynn, S.; Heck, P.; Agarwal, S. Acute and sub-acute sinus node dysfunction following pulmonary vein isolation: A case series. Eur. Heart J. Case Rep. 2018, 2, ytx020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  14. Yokokawa, M.; Sundaram, B.; Oral, H.; Morady, F.; Chugh, A. The course of the sinus node artery and its impact on achieving linear block at the left atrial roof in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation. Heart Rhythm 2012, 9, 1395–1402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Miyazaki, Y.; Ueda, N.; Otsuka, F.; Miyamoto, K.; Noguchi, T.; Kusano, K. Rescue percutaneous coronary intervention for sinus node dysfunction following left atrial flutter ablation. Heart Rhythm Case Rep. 2021, 7, 529–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Ozturk, E.; Saglam, M.; Bozlar, U.; Sivrioglu, A.K.; Karaman, B.; Onat, L.; Basekim, C.C. Arterial supply of the sinoatrial node: A CT coronary angiographic study. Int. J. Cardiovasc. Imaging 2011, 27, 619–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Deshmukh, A.J.; Yao, X.; Schilz, S.; Van Houten, H.; Sangaralingham, L.R.; Asirvatham, S.J.; Friedman, P.A.; Packer, U.L.; Noseworthy, P.A. Pacemaker implantation after catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation. J. Interv. Card. Electrophysiol. 2016, 45, 99–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Raitt, M.H.; Kusumoto, W.; Giraud, G.; McAnulty, J.H. Reversal of electrical remodeling after cardioversion of persistent atrial fibrillation. J. Cardiovasc. Electrophysiol. 2004, 15, 507–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Hocini, M.; Sanders, P.; Deisenhofer, I.; Jais, P.; Hsu, L.-F.; Scavée, C.; Weerasoriya, R.; Raybaud, F.; Macle, L.; Shah, D.C.; et al. Reverse remodeling of sinus node function after catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation in patients with prolonged sinus pauses. Circulation 2003, 108, 1172–1175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Chen, Y.W.; Bai, R.; Lin, T.; Salim, M.; Sang, C.H.; Long, D.Y.; Yu, R.H.; Tang, R.B.; Guo, X.Y.; Yan, X.L.; et al. Pacing or ablation: Which is better for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation-related tachycardia-bradycardia syndrome? Pacing Clin. Electrophysiol. 2014, 37, 403–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Khaykin, Y.; Marrouche, N.F.; Martin, D.O.; Saliba, W.; Schweikert, R.; Wexman, M.; Strunk, B.; Beheiry, S.; Saad, E.; Bhargava, M.; et al. Pulmonary vein isolation for atrial fibrillation in patients with symptomatic sinus bradycardia or pauses. J. Cardiovasc. Electrophysiol. 2004, 15, 784–789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Inada, K.; Yamane, T.; Tokutake, K.-I.; Yokoyama, K.-I.; Mishima, T.; Hioki, M.; Narui, R.; Ito, K.; Tanigawa, S.-I.; Yamashita, S.; et al. The role of successful catheter ablation in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation and prolonged sinus pauses: Outcome during a 5-year follow-up. Europace 2014, 16, 208–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Song, C.; Jin, M.-N.; Lee, J.-H.; Kim, I.-S.; Uhm, J.-S.; Pak, H.-N.; Lee, M.-H.; Joung, B. Predictors of sick sinus syndrome in patients after successful radiofrequency catheter ablation of atrial flutter. Yonsei Med. J. 2015, 56, 31–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  24. Semmler, V.; von Krogh, F.; Haller, B.; Reents, T.; Bourier, F.; Telishevska, M.; Kottmaier, M.; Kornmayer, M.; Brooks, S.; Koch-Büttner, K.; et al. The incidence, indications and predictors of acute pacemaker implantation after ablation of persistent atrial fibrillation. Clin. Res. Cardiol. 2019, 108, 651–659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Kim, D.-H.; Choi, J.-I.; Lee, K.N.; Ahn, J.; Roh, S.Y.; Lee, D.I.; Shim, J.; Kim, J.S.; Lim, H.E.; Park, S.W.; et al. Long-term clinical outcomes of catheter ablation in patients with atrial fibrillation predisposing to tachycardia-bradycardia syndrome: A long pause predicts implantation of a permanent pacemaker. BMC Cardiovasc. Disord. 2018, 18, 106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Skjøth, F.; Vadmann, H.; Hjortshøj, S.P.; Riahi, S.; Lip, G.Y.H.; Larsen, T.B. Disease progression after ablation for atrial flutter compared with atrial fibrillation: A nationwide cohort study. Int. J. Clin. Pract. 2018, 72, e13258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Medi, C.; Teh, A.W.; Roberts-Thomson, K.; Morton, J.B.; Kistler, P.; Kalman, J.M. Right atrial remodeling is more advanced in patients with atrial flutter than with atrial fibrillation. J. Cardiovasc. Electrophysiol. 2012, 23, 1067–1072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Kawaji, T.; Shizuta, S.; Yamagami, S.; Aizawa, T.; Yoshizawa, T.; Kato, M.; Yokomatsu, T.; Miki, S.; Ono, K.; Kimura, T. Impact of Pre-Existing Bradycardia on Subsequent Need for Pacemaker Implantation After Radiofrequency Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation. Circ. J. 2018, 82, 2493–2499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Hada, M.; Miyazaki, S.; Kajiyama, T.; Yamaguchi, M.; Kusa, S.; Nakamura, H.; Hachiya, H.; Tada, H.; Hirao, K.; Iesaka, Y. Catheter ablation of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation in patients with sick sinus syndrome. Heart Vessels. 2019, 34, 503–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Sunaga, A.; Masuda, M.; Kanda, T.; Fujita, M.; Iida, O.; Okamoto, S.; Ishihara, T.; Matsuda, Y.; Watanabe, T.; Sakata, Y.; et al. A low fibrillatory wave amplitude predicts sinus node dysfunction after catheter ablation in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation. J. Interv. Card Electrophysiol. 2015, 43, 253–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Kim, D.; Shim, C.Y.; Hong, G.-R.; Cho, I.J.; Lee, S.H.; Chang, H.-J.; Lee, S.; Ha, J.-W.; Chang, B.-C. Sinus node dysfunction after surgical atrial fibrillation ablation with concomitant mitral valve surgery: Determinants and clinical outcomes. PLoS ONE. 2018, 13, e0203828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  32. Masuda, M.; Inoue, K.; Iwakura, K.; Okamura, A.; Koyama, Y.; Kimura, R.; Toyoshima, Y.; Doi, A.; Sotomi, Y.; Komuro, I.; et al. Preprocedural ventricular rate predicts subsequent sick sinus syndrome after ablation for long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation. Pacing Clin. Electrophysiol. 2012, 35, 1074–1080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Sairaku, A.; Nakano, Y.; Oda, N.; Makita, Y.; Kajihara, K.; Tokuyama, T.; Motoda, C.; Fujiwara, M.; Kihara, Y. Prediction of sinus node dysfunction in patients with persistent atrial flutter using the flutter cycle length. Europace 2012, 14, 380–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Vargas, U.H.; Bonelo, P.A.; Sierra, T. Effects of thyroid hormones on the heart. Clin. Investig. Arterioscler. 2014, 26, 296–309. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. Flow chart of the studied patients. AFL: atrial flutter; PPM: permanent pacemaker; SND: sinus node dysfunction.
Figure 1. Flow chart of the studied patients. AFL: atrial flutter; PPM: permanent pacemaker; SND: sinus node dysfunction.
Jcm 11 03212 g001
Figure 2. Kaplan–Meier estimates for the PPM implantation after ablation for persistent AFL. After ablation for persistent AFL, the cumulative incidence of delayed SND requiring a PPM implantation increased for several months, almost reaching a plateau after 1 year. AFL: atrial flutter; PPM: permanent pacemaker; SND: sinus node dysfunction.
Figure 2. Kaplan–Meier estimates for the PPM implantation after ablation for persistent AFL. After ablation for persistent AFL, the cumulative incidence of delayed SND requiring a PPM implantation increased for several months, almost reaching a plateau after 1 year. AFL: atrial flutter; PPM: permanent pacemaker; SND: sinus node dysfunction.
Jcm 11 03212 g002
Figure 3. Kaplan–Meier estimates for the delayed SND requiring a PPM after ablation for persistent AFL among patients in the different age groups, with the statistical significance examined using the Log-rank test. AFL: atrial flutter; PPM: permanent pacemaker; SND: sinus node dysfunction.
Figure 3. Kaplan–Meier estimates for the delayed SND requiring a PPM after ablation for persistent AFL among patients in the different age groups, with the statistical significance examined using the Log-rank test. AFL: atrial flutter; PPM: permanent pacemaker; SND: sinus node dysfunction.
Jcm 11 03212 g003
Figure 4. Kaplan–Meier estimates for the delayed SND requiring a PPM after ablation for persistent AFL among patients with and without a history of hypothyroidism, with the statistical significance examined using the Log-rank test. AFL: atrial flutter; PPM: permanent pacemaker; SND: sinus node dysfunction.
Figure 4. Kaplan–Meier estimates for the delayed SND requiring a PPM after ablation for persistent AFL among patients with and without a history of hypothyroidism, with the statistical significance examined using the Log-rank test. AFL: atrial flutter; PPM: permanent pacemaker; SND: sinus node dysfunction.
Jcm 11 03212 g004
Table 1. The detailed characteristics of the patients developing acute SND after the AFL ablation.
Table 1. The detailed characteristics of the patients developing acute SND after the AFL ablation.
Patient No.Age (Year) GenderAFL Form Flutter Cycle Length (ms)Pre-Ablation Sinus Rate (bpm) TPM Back-Up Duration (Day)PPM Mode
Patients who did not recover from acute SND
162FTypical296NA3 DDD
264MBoth348NA4 DDD
343FTypical294NA4 DDD
454MTypical264NA1 DDD
Patients who recovered from acute SND, but developed delayed SND
560FAtypical208652DDD
661MTypical220NA1DDD
778FTypical244NA1DDD
889MTypical300NA5DDD
Patients who recovered from acute SND, without developing delayed SND
956FBoth288NA1NA
1068FTypical309783NA
1161FTypical238NA2NA
1262FTypical2781081NA
1382FAtypical286641NA
1489MBoth209NA1NA
Pre-ablation sinus rate will not be available if no documented sinus rhythm during one year before ablation; The TPMs were not removed until PPM implantation; AFL: atrial flutter; bpm: beats per minute; F: female; M: male; NA: not applicable; No.: number; PPM: permanent pacemaker; SND: sinus node dysfunction; TPM: temporary pacemaker.
Table 2. Logistic regression analysis of variables to predict acute SND requiring a TPM after AFL termination (n = 221).
Table 2. Logistic regression analysis of variables to predict acute SND requiring a TPM after AFL termination (n = 221).
VariablesUnivariableMultivariable
OR (95% CI)p ValueOR (95% CI)p Value
Age1.02 (0.97–1.06)0.504
Female5.10 (1.64–15.89)0.0053.66 (1.08–12.43)0.038
BMI0.96 (0.84–1.11)0.597
Comorbidities
 CAD1.05 (0.32–3.49)0.933
 MR 1.22 (0.37–4.07)0.742
 Hypertension1.48 (0.50–4.43)0.480
 Diabetes mellitus1.11 (0.33–3.67)0.870
 HFrEF1.79 (0.57–5.60)0.316
 Chronic kidney disease1.56 (0.33–7.46)0.579
 TIA/stroke1.91 (0.22–16.48)0.555
 Hyperthyroidism2.49 (0.50–12.30)0.264
 Hypothyroidism11.33 (1.73–74.39)0.0118.80 (1.05–74.03)0.045
AFL type
 CCW typical flutter1.10 (0.30–4.14)0.883
 CW typical flutter1.47 (0.18–11.79)0.718
 Atypical flutter1.74 (0.56–5.45)0.338
Location of flutter circuit(s)
 Right atrium alone1.24 (0.15–10.02)0.841
 Left atrium alone0.85 (0.18–3.96)0.834
 Both atriums0.92 (0.11–7.48)0.936
Ablation site(s)
 CTI2.13 (0.44–10.43)0.349
 PVI1.39 (0.17–11.19)0.757
 Biatrial ablation1.55 (0.19–12.39)0.682
Flutter cycle length1.01 (0.99–1.01)0.210
Concomitant AF1.57 (0.53–4.69)0.417
Pre-procedural medication
 Beta-blocker1.75 (0.57–5.40)0.331
 Non-DHP CCB1.04 (0.34–3.23)0.944
 Propafenone0.98 (0.21–4.62)0.983
 Amiodarone1.92 (0.65–5.68)0.241
Post-procedural medication
 Beta-blocker0.33 (0.10–1.07)0.065
 Non-DHP CCB1.01 (0.27–3.78)0.988
 Propafenone1.21 (0.32–4.56)0.775
 Amiodarone0.92 (0.31–2.74)0.880
Echocardiography
 LA diameter1.08 (1.01–1.15)0.0311.07 (0.99–1.15)0.062
 LA area1.02 (0.94–1.11)0.685
 RA diameter1.05 (0.99–1.13)0.123
 RA area1.07 (0.99–1.16)0.093
 LVEF0.99 (0.95–1.04)0.739
 LVH0.56 (0.12–2.60)0.458
 MR 1.06 (0.23–4.97)0.942
 TR 1.37 (0.36–5.19)0.641
Electrocardiography
 Heart rate 1.01 (0.96–1.07)0.612
 Long-standing persistent AFL3.01 (0.91–9.89)0.070
 QRS duration1.01 (0.98–1.03)0.598
Defined as moderate to severe regurgitation; Only measured for patients with documented sinus rhythm within one year before ablation (n = 114); AAD: antiarrhythmic drugs; AF: atrial fibrillation; AFL: atrial flutter; BMI: body mass index; CAD, coronary artery disease; CCB: calcium channel blocker; CCW: counterclockwise; CTI: cavotricuspid isthmus; CW: clockwise; DHP: dihydropyridine; HFrEF: heart failure with reduced ejection fraction; LA: left atrium; LVEF: left ventricular ejection fraction; LVH: left ventricular hypertrophy; MR: mitral regurgitation; OR: odds ratio; PVI: pulmonary vein isolation; RA: right atrium; SND: sinus node dysfunction; TIA: transient ischemic stroke; TPM: temporary pacemaker; TR: tricuspid regurgitation.
Table 3. Cox regression analysis of variables to predict delayed SND requiring a PPM after AFL termination (n = 221).
Table 3. Cox regression analysis of variables to predict delayed SND requiring a PPM after AFL termination (n = 221).
VariablesUnivariableMultivariable
HR (95% CI)p ValueHR (95% CI)p Value
Age1.07 (1.01–1.12)0.0161.07 (1.01–1.13)0.018
Female1.44 (0.42–4.91)0.564
BMI0.97 (0.83–1.12)0.665
Comorbidities
 CAD1.52 (0.45–5.20)0.503
 MR 1.25 (0.33–4.73)0.740
 Hypertension1.94 (0.57–6.61)0.292
 Diabetes mellitus0.27 (0.03–2.10)0.211
 HFrEF2.89 (0.88–9.47)0.080
 Hyperthyroidism1.13 (0.15–8.83)0.907
 Hypothyroidism9.48 (2.04–44.09)0.0048.87 (1.89–41.72)0.006
AFL type
 CCW typical flutter0.41 (0.05–3.23)0.400
 Atypical flutter1.68 (0.49–5.73)0.411
Location of flutter circuit(s)
 Right atrium alone1.00 (0.13–7.81)0.998
 Left atrium alone1.10 (0.24–5.09)0.907
 Both atriums1.18 (0.15–9.25)0.874
Ablation site(s)
 CTI1.11 (0.14–8.69)0.920
 PVI1.07 (0.14–8.34)0.951
Flutter cycle length1.00 (0.98–1.01)0.670
Concomitant AF1.37 (0.42–4.49)0.604
Pre-procedural medication
 Beta-blocker0.89 (0.27–2.91)0.843
 Non-DHP CCB0.90 (0.26–3.08)0.868
 Propafenone0.50 (0.06–3.92)0.511
 Amiodarone0.94 (0.28–3.22)0.926
Post-procedural medication
 Beta-blocker0.41 (0.12–1.39)0.151
 Non-DHP CCB0.73 (0.16–3.38)0.687
 Propafenone1.38 (0.37–5.21)0.632
 Amiodarone0.41 (0.11–1.55)0.190
Echocardiography
 LA diameter1.04 (0.96–1.13)0.358
 LA area1.05 (0.96–1.16)0.294
 RA diameter0.95 (0.87–1.05)0.320
 RA area1.02 (0.91–1.14)0.755
 LVEF0.99 (0.93–1.05)0.645
 LVH1.95 (0.57–6.66)0.287
 MR 0.66 (0.14–3.12)0.603
 TR 2.39 (0.62–9.26)0.206
Electrocardiography
 Heart rate 0.96 (0.90–1.03)0.274
 Sinus bradycardia ‡,§5.94 (0.99–35.57)0.051
 Long-standing persistent AFL1.66 (0.51–5.46)0.401
 QRS duration0.99 (0.97–1.02)0.553
Defined as moderate to severe regurgitation; Only measured for patients with documented sinus rhythm within one year before ablation (n = 114); § Defined as sinus rate < 60 beats per minute within one year before ablation; AAD: antiarrhythmic drugs; AF: atrial fibrillation; AFL: atrial flutter; BMI: body mass index; CAD, coronary artery disease; CCB: calcium channel blocker; CCW: counterclockwise; CTI: cavotricuspid isthmus; DHP: dihydropyridine; HFrEF: heart failure with reduced ejection fraction; HR: hazard ratio; LA: left atrium; LVEF: left ventricular ejection fraction; LVH: left ventricular hypertrophy; MR: mitral regurgitation; PPM: permanent pacemaker; PVI: pulmonary vein isolation; RA: right atrium; SND: sinus node dysfunction; TR: tricuspid regurgitation.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Li, G.-Y.; Chung, F.-P.; Chao, T.-F.; Lin, Y.-J.; Chang, S.-L.; Lo, L.-W.; Hu, Y.-F.; Tuan, T.-C.; Liao, J.-N.; Chang, T.-Y.; et al. Sinus Node Dysfunction after Successful Atrial Flutter Ablation during Follow-Up: Clinical Characteristics and Predictors. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 3212. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11113212

AMA Style

Li G-Y, Chung F-P, Chao T-F, Lin Y-J, Chang S-L, Lo L-W, Hu Y-F, Tuan T-C, Liao J-N, Chang T-Y, et al. Sinus Node Dysfunction after Successful Atrial Flutter Ablation during Follow-Up: Clinical Characteristics and Predictors. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2022; 11(11):3212. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11113212

Chicago/Turabian Style

Li, Guan-Yi, Fa-Po Chung, Tze-Fan Chao, Yenn-Jiang Lin, Shih-Lin Chang, Li-Wei Lo, Yu-Feng Hu, Ta-Chuan Tuan, Jo-Nan Liao, Ting-Yung Chang, and et al. 2022. "Sinus Node Dysfunction after Successful Atrial Flutter Ablation during Follow-Up: Clinical Characteristics and Predictors" Journal of Clinical Medicine 11, no. 11: 3212. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11113212

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop