全身免疫炎症指数与房颤射频消融术后复发的相关性研究
Study on the Correlation between Systemic Immunoinflammatory Index and Recurrence of Atrial Fibrillation after Radiofrequency Ablation
摘要: 目的:探讨全身免疫炎症指数(SII)与房颤射频消融术后复发的相关性。方法:回顾性研究,选择2020年8月~2023年6月在青岛大学附属医院500例做过房颤射频消融术患者,术后接受为期1年的随访,随访期间重点观察患者复发情况,将其分为复发组、未复发组。结果:参加研究的500例房颤患者全部实施射频消融术,在这项研究中的500位患者中,术后12个月的随访中,出现123例(24.6%)患者在房颤射频消融术后发生早期复发。相较于非复发组,房颤复发组患者术前全身免疫炎症指数(SII)明显升高。绘制ROC曲线,将房颤患者SII水平和是否复发作为横纵坐标绘制曲线,分析结果显示,确定房颤复发最佳截断值为386.756,其灵敏度为77.24%,特异度为68.17%,具有较好的诊断价值。多因素Logistic回归分析显示,SII是射频消融术后房颤复发的独立预测因子。结论:全身免疫炎症指数可以作为一种房颤复发的血清标志物,术前高水平SII提示射频消融术后具有较高的房颤复发风险。
Abstract: Objective: To investigate the correlation between systemic immune inflammatory index (SII) and recurrence after radiofrequency ablation for atrial fibrillation. Methods: A retrospective study was conducted to select 500 patients who had undergone radiofrequency ablation for atrial fibrillation in the Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University from August 2020 to June 2023, and received a 1-year follow-up after the procedure, during which the patients were divided into recurrence and non-recurrence groups by focusing on recurrence. Results: All 500 patients with atrial fibrillation who participated in the study underwent radiofrequency ablation. Of the 500 patients in this study, 123 patients (24.6%) experienced early recurrence after radiofrequency ablation of atrial fibrillation at the 12-month postoperative follow-up. The preoperative systemic immunoinflammatory index (SII) was significantly higher in patients in the AF recurrence group compared with the nonrecurrence group. The ROC curve was plotted, and the SII level and whether recurrence occurred in AF patients were plotted as the horizontal and vertical coordinates. The results of the analysis showed that the optimal cut-off value for determining AF recurrence was 386.756, and its sensitivity was 77.24% and specificity was 68.17%, which had a good diagnostic value. Multifactorial logistic regression analysis showed that SII was an independent predictor of AF recurrence after radiofrequency ablation. Conclusion: Systemic immunoinflammatory index can be used as a serum marker for AF recurrence, and high levels of preoperative SII suggest a high risk of AF recurrence after radiofrequency ablation.
文章引用:郭延婷, 张继东. 全身免疫炎症指数与房颤射频消融术后复发的相关性研究[J]. 临床医学进展, 2025, 15(7): 123-131. https://doi.org/10.12677/acm.2025.1571966

1. 引言

心房颤动(Atrial Fibrillation, AF)简称房颤,是指规则有序的心房电活动丧失,代之以快速无序的颤动波,是严重的心房电活动紊乱,也是常见的快速性心律失常之一。心房颤动(简称房颤)是临床常见的心律失常,其发病率随着年龄的增加而显著升高,除导致心悸、胸闷等不适症状外,还会增加栓塞、心力衰竭、死亡等风险[1]。自环肺静脉隔离用于房颤的消融治疗以来,越来越多临床研究证实导管射频消融治疗房颤的有效性及安全性[2] [3],其维持窦性心律及改善症状的效果均显著优于药物治疗,区此目前国内外指南均推荐对于症状性房颤患者,可首选射频消融治疗[4]。房颤的病理生理机制并不为人所知[5] [6]。炎症和基质改变(如纤维化)对了解房颤十分复杂[7]-[10]。复发的机制可能是由于不完全隔离、急性炎症改变、传导恢复和自主神经系统的改变[11]。全身免疫炎症指数是根据常规血液测试得出的全身炎症[12]。中性粒细胞与淋巴细胞之比、血小板与淋巴细胞之比、淋巴细胞与单核细胞之比均与全身炎症状态及房颤进展有关[13]。炎症在房颤的发生和发展中起着重要作用。全身免疫炎症指数(SII)是一种新的标记物,它将三种炎症周围细胞计数结合在一起,根据中性粒细胞*血小板/淋巴细胞计数计算而得。Hu等[14]首次提出,起初SII用于肿瘤学领域反映癌症患者全身性炎症的严重程度。近年来也被证实与某些心血管疾病的严重程度及预后相关。SII是综合血小板、中性粒细胞和淋巴细胞计数的指标,较NLR和PLR有更高的预测价值。系统炎症指标易于评估和预测房颤的发展。然而,它在预测房颤复发中的作用是未知的。我们的目的是探讨系统全身免疫炎症指数与房颤射频消融术后复发的相关性研究。

2. 资料与方法

2.1. 病人的选择

纳入2020年8月~2023年6月在青岛大学附属医院心内科收治的500例做过房颤射频消融术符合入组标准患者,纳入标准:(1) 均符合《2023年心房颤动诊断和治疗中国指南》中心房颤动诊断标准;(2) 单导联心电图(≥30 s)或12导联心电图(≥10 s)显示P波消失,代之以大小、形态及时限均不规则的颤动波(f波)、RR间期绝对不规则;(3) 药物治疗无效,呼吸急促、心悸等典型临床特征明显,且符合射频消融术的手术指征;(4) 心功能分级(NYHA分级) < II级;(5) 临床资料完整。

排除标准是:(1) 患者合并有结构性心脏病、瓣膜病、左心房直径大于5.5 cm;(2) 影响全身免疫炎症指数的疾病如恶性肿瘤、风湿病、甲状腺疾病、心肌炎及肺部感染、急慢性感染、血液系统疾病等;(3) 妊娠期、哺乳期妇女;(4) 临床资料不完全。

复发的判定标准:消融3个月后发生的房颤、房扑、房速,如持续时间 ≥ 30 s,应视为房颤复发。根据复发时间又分为早期复发(术后3~12个月)和晚期复发(术后12个月以后)。空白期发作病例处理:发生率在50%以上[15],尽管空白期发作特别是术后1~3个月的发作是房颤消融失败的独立危险因素,但由于房颤和/或房速的发生在消融术后2~3个月内常见,部分可自行消失,故再次消融一般建议推迟到首次消融术3个月以后。空白期发作的原因包括肺静脉未完全隔离、肺静脉传导恢复和非肺静脉触发灶存在等因素。术后短期应用AAD (抗心律失常药物),可降低空白期房性心律失常发作,但对预防复发无效。

临床数据和实验室测试:患者来医院看病要仔细询问病史,记录好每位患者的年龄、性别、身高、体重、是否有高血压、冠心病、糖尿病、肾脏病、脑血管疾病等一般临床资料,计算出BMI和SII (全身免疫炎症指数)。其中SII应用迈瑞全自动血细胞分析仪BC-6800检测,使用迈瑞CRP-M100检测CRP,术前完善检查,排除手术禁忌,由同一医师在CARTO三维标测系统下完成射频消融术。

2.2. 统计学方方法

本次研究使用SPSS 26.0软件进行数据统计分析。其中,符合正态分布的计量资料以 x ¯ ±s 的形式表示,两组间比较采用独立样本t检验,组内比较采用配对样本t检验;计数资料以N(%)的形式表示,组间比较采用χ2检验。均取P < 0.05为差异具有统计学意义。通过ROC曲线的建立,确定能够预测房颤复发合适的血清SII阈值。使用Logistic回归分析以P < 0.05为差异具有统计学意义。SII是房颤复发的独立影响因素。

3. 结果

基线特征:本次研究总共收集病历资料完整和随访记录清晰的房颤患者500例,每个患者都是实施射频消融治疗。随访时间1年,在这期间123位(24.6%)的患者在房颤射频消融术后早期复发。房颤患者的临床资料、SII (全身免疫炎症指数)、超声心动图指标关系见表1。将两组数据进行比较发现,复发组患者SII高于非复发组,左心室射血分数低于非复发组,左心房内径大于非复发组,血清CRP水平较高,见表1

Table 1. Comparison of general information between the relapse and non-relapse groups

1. 复发组与未复发组一般资料比较

一般资料

未复发(n = 377)

复发(n = 123)

t/χ2

P

年龄

62.09 ± 9.69

64.02 ± 9.05

1.877

0.060

性别

2.727

0.099

231 (61.3)

65 (52.8)

146 (38.7)

58 (47.2)

BMI

25.60 (23.80, 27.70)

26.30 (24.20, 27.50)

1.060

0.289

吸烟史

0.953

0.329

294 (78.0)

101 (82.1)

83 (22.0)

22 (17.9)

高血压

0.008

0.928

176 (46.7)

58 (47.2)

201 (53.3)

65 (52.8)

冠心病

0.131

0.718

270 (71.6)

86 (69.9)

107 (28.4)

37 (30.1)

糖尿病

0.001

0.980

313 (83.0)

102 (82.9)

64 (17.0)

21 (17.1)

肾脏疾病

0.057

0.811

363 (96.3)

119 (96.7)

14 (3.7)

4 (3.3)

脑血管病

0.471

0.493

325 (86.2)

109 (88.6)

52 (13.8)

14 (11.4)

注:LAD为左心房直径;BMI为体重指数;NT-proBNP为氨基末端B型利钠肽前体;SII为全身免疫炎症指数;CRP为C反应蛋白;UA为尿素;CK为肌酸激酶;CK-MB为肌酸激酶同工酶。

检验结果显示,其中未复发组平均年龄(62.09 ± 9.69)岁,复发组平均年龄(64.02 ± 9.05)岁。两组间差异无统计学意义(P > 0.05);未复发组男性231例,占比61.3%,女性146例,占比38.7%,复发组男性65例,占比52.8%,女性58例,占比47.2%,两组间差异无统计学意义(P > 0.05)。从BMI来看,未复发组BMI为25.60 (23.80, 27.70),复发组BMI为26.30 (24.20, 27.50),两组间差异无统计学意义(P > 0.05);从吸烟史来看,未复发组吸烟人数为83人,占比22.0%,复发组吸烟人数22人,占比为17.9%,两组间差异无统计学意义(P > 0.05)。从高血压来看,未复发组107人患有高血压,占比28.4%,复发组37人患有高血压,占比30.1%,两组间差异无统计学意义(P > 0.05)。从糖尿病来看,未复发组64人,占比170%,复发组21人,占比17.1%,两组间差异无统计学意义(P > 0.05)。从肾脏疾病来看,未复发组14人,占比3.7%,复发组4人,占比3.3%,两组间差异无统计学意义(P > 0.05)。从脑血管疾病来看,未复发组52人,占比13.8%,复发组14人,占比11.4%,两组间差异无统计学意义(P > 0.05)。

复发组与未复发组在年龄、性别、BMI、吸烟史、高血压、冠心病、糖尿病、肾脏疾病等一般资料方面差异无统计学意义(P > 0.05),见表2

Table 2. Comparison of clinical indicators between relapsed and non-relapsed group

2. 复发组与未复发组临床指标比较

临床指标

未复发(n = 377)

复发(n = 123)

t

P

左心房直径(LAD) cm

4.10 (3.75, 4.50)

4.30 (3.90, 4.60)

3.028

0.002

左心室射血分数

60.00 (55.00, 61.00)

59.00 (55.00, 60.00)

1.981

0.048

SII

325.05 (250.71, 420.02)

491.45 (388.42, 657.41)

9.349

<0.001

CRP

1.16 (0.51, 2.12)

1.46 (0.79, 3.09)

2.890

0.004

NT-proBNP

162.90 (76.00, 455.60)

364.40 (102.20, 744.50)

3.744

<0.001

UA

345.00 (282.60, 405.00)

329.00 (257.00, 417.80)

1.041

0.298

肌酐

69.00 (58.00, 83.00)

72.00 (59.00, 82.00)

0.369

0.712

甘油三酯

1.16 (0.82, 1.63)

1.12 (0.83, 1.74)

0.060

0.952

CK

79.00 (61.25, 106.55)

79.00 (60.00, 112.00)

0.009

0.993

CK-MB

14.00 (11.93, 17.00)

14.00 (12.00, 17.90)

0.148

0.882

检验结果显示,从左心房直径来看,未复发组为4.10 (3.75, 4.50),复发组左心房直径为4.30 (3.90, 4.60),两组间差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05);从左心室射血分数来看,未复发组为60.00 (55.00, 61.00),复发组为59.00 (55.00, 60.00),两组差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05);从SII来看,未复发组为325.05 (250.71, 420.02),复发组为491.45 (388.42, 657.41),两组差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05);从CRP来看,未复发组为1.16 (0.51, 2.12),复发组为1.46 (0.79, 3.09),两组间差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05);从NT-proBNP来看,未复发组为162.90 (76.00, 455.60),复发组为364.40 (102.20, 744.50),两组间差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05);从UA来看,未复发组为345.00 (282.60, 405.00),复发组为329.00 (257.00, 417.80),两组间差异无统计学意义(P < 0.05);从肌酐来看,未复发组为69.00 (58.00, 83.00),复发组为72.00 (59.00, 82.00),两组间差异无统计学意义(P > 0.05);从甘油三酯来看,未复发组为1.16 (0.82, 1.63),复发组为1.12 (0.83, 1.74),两组间差异无统计学意义(P > 0.05)。从CK来看,未复发组为79.00 (61.25, 106.55),复发组为79.00 (60.00, 112.00),两组间差异无统计学意义(P > 0.05);从CK-MB来看,未复发组14.00 (11.93, 17.00),复发组为14.00 (12.00, 17.90),两组间差异无统计学意义(P > 0.05)。

4. Logistic回归分析

以是否存在房颤复发为因变量,进行单因素分析,选择左心房直径(LAD)、SII、CRP、NT-proBNP等P < 0.1的指标纳入模型,进行多因素分析,并采用向前逐步回归法(Forward)建立多因素Logistic回归模型,见表3~5

Table 3. Results of one-factor logistic regression models

3. 单因素logistic回归模型结果

变量

B

SE

Wald 2

P

OR

95%CI

下限

上限

左心房直径(LAD)

0.623

0.200

9.712

0.002

1.864

1.260

2.757

左心室射血分数

−0.025

0.019

1.769

0.184

0.975

0.940

1.012

SII

0.006

0.001

67.797

0.000

1.006

1.004

1.007

CRP

0.014

0.008

2.784

0.095

1.014

0.998

1.030

NT-proBNP

0.000

0.000

4.434

0.035

1.000

1.000

1.000

UA

−0.001

0.001

0.971

0.324

0.999

0.997

1.001

肌酐

0.000

0.006

0.001

0.973

1.000

0.989

1.011

甘油三酯

0.065

0.060

1.198

0.274

1.067

0.950

1.200

CK

0.000

0.002

0.012

0.914

1.000

0.996

1.004

CK-MB

0.003

0.014

0.031

0.861

1.003

0.975

1.031

Table 4. Results of multifactor logistic regression models

4. 多因素logistic回归模型结果

变量

B

SE

Wald 2

P

OR

95%CI

下限

上限

SII

0.006

0.001

67.797

<0.001

1.006

1.004

1.007

Table 5. Results of single-factor and multi-factor logistic regression models

5. 单因素、多因素logistic回归模型结果

单因素

多因素

OR

P

CI

OR

P

CI

LAD

1.864

0.002

1.260~2.757

CRP

1.014

0.095

0.998~1.030

NT-proBNP

1.000

0.035

1.000~1.000

SII

1.006

<0.001

1.004~1.007

1.006

<0.001

1.004~1.007

5. ROC曲线分析

ROC曲线分析结果显示,SII指标诊断复发的曲线下面积AUC为0.781,对应的95%CI为0.734~0.827,最佳截断值为386.756,其灵敏度为77.24%,特异度为68.17%,具有较好的诊断价值,见图1表6

Figure 1. ROC curve

1. ROC曲线

Table 6. Results of ROC curve analysis

6. ROC曲线分析结果

指标

AUC

95%CI

P

Cut-off

敏感性(%)

特异性(%)

SII

0.781

0.734~0.827

<0.001

386.756

77.24

68.17

6. 讨论

在我们的回顾性研究中,我们更多地关注全身免疫炎症指数(SII)与房颤射频消融术后复发的关系。我们发现在复发患者中,术前SII水平较高。此外,我们已经证实,SII是房颤复发的独立预后因素。房颤复发的精确机制尚未得到充分阐明。众所周知,炎症与房颤的发展和复发是独立相关的[16]-[20]。多项研究表明炎症指标可预测房颤复发[21] [22]。心房组织的改变,如纤维化、白细胞浸润和氧化损伤,可能有助于电和结构重塑,从而可能促进房颤复发[23]。一些炎症性生物标记物,包括CRP、IL-6、IL-2、基质金属蛋白酶-2和肿瘤坏死因子-α,与复发性房颤有显著相关[24] [25]。此外,抗炎疗法可减少房颤复发[26]。与单独使用任何一种标记物比,SII能够更好地反映人体的免疫和炎症状态[27]。已在不同癌症中广泛研究。此外,中性粒细胞和淋巴细胞水平与房颤的发生和进展有关[28] [29]。中性粒细胞释放的炎症介质,如白介素8、血管内皮生长因子,可促进房颤。最近,据报道血小板通过转化生长因子-β1依赖性方式发挥促纤维化作用。SII不仅包含中性粒细胞和淋巴细胞比率,而且包含血小板水平,可能在一定程度上反映心房纤维化情况。因此,在对房颤消融的预后评估中,SII优于其他全身炎症指标。

房颤是世界上最常见的心律失常。房颤的复发并不能归咎于我们的手术。很多证据表明急性炎症改变对房颤复发至关重要。我们的发现支持炎症改变促进房颤复发。另一方面,针对局部炎症是预防房颤复发的一种治疗选择。虽然,炎症并不是引发房颤复发的唯一因素。类似秋水仙碱等抗炎药物,可持续及有可能导致房颤复发。

本研究存在一些局限性。首先这是一个单一的中心回顾性分析一个小的病人群。此类研究的固有局限性不可避免的会影响患者选择并产生选择偏倚。此外,我们仅在入院时计算一次SII (全身免疫炎症指数),在研究期间未监测这些炎症标志物的变化。射频消融术后无特殊情况,患者于术后第二天出院,未再检测SII (全身免疫炎症指数),存在术后监测困难性,也给研究带来一些局限性。此外,无症状房颤患者可能在不进行长期动态监测的情况下被忽略。

我们目前的工作表明,全身免疫炎症指数可以作为一种房颤复发的血清标志物,术前高水平SII提示射频消融术后具有较高的房颤复发风险。基于我们的发现,早期评价AF复发风险和干预措施可能对未来预防AF复发具有重要意义。

伦理审批

本研究获得青岛大学附属医院医学伦理委员会审批,审批号:QYFYwzll30169。

NOTES

*通讯作者。

参考文献

[1] 黄从新, 张澍, 黄德嘉, 等. 心房颤动: 目前的认识和治疗的建议-2018 [J]. 中国心脏起搏与心电生理杂志, 2018, 32(4): 315-368.
[2] Yang, P., Sung, J., Jang, E., Yu, H.T., Kim, T., Uhm, J., et al. (2020) Catheter Ablation Improves Mortality and Other Outcomes in Real‐World Patients with Atrial Fibrillation. Journal of the American Heart Association, 9, e015740.
https://doi.org/10.1161/jaha.119.015740
[3] Mark, D.B., Anstrom, K.J., Sheng, S., Piccini, J.P., Baloch, K.N., Monahan, K.H., et al. (2019) Effect of Catheter Ablation vs Medical Therapy on Quality of Life among Patients with Atrial Fibrillation. JAMA, 321, 1275-1285.
https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2019.0692
[4] January, C.T., Wann, L.S., Calkins, H., et al. (2019) 2019AHA/ACC/HRS Focused Update of the 2014 AHA/ACC/HRS Guideline for the Management of Patients with Atrial Fibrillation: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/ American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Heart Rhythm Society. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 74, 104-132.
[5] Wang, B., Tian, L., Gao, X., Ma, X., Wu, J., Zhang, C., et al. (2016) Dynamic Change of the Systemic Immune Inflammation Index Predicts the Prognosis of Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma after Curative Resection. Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM), 54, 1963-1969.
https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2015-1191
[6] Karam, B.S., Chavez-Moreno, A., Koh, W., Akar, J.G. and Akar, F.G. (2017) Oxidative Stress and Inflammation as Central Mediators of Atrial Fibrillation in Obesity and Diabetes. Cardiovascular Diabetology, 16, Article No. 120.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12933-017-0604-9
[7] Frustaci, A., Chimenti, C., Bellocci, F., Morgante, E., Russo, M.A. and Maseri, A. (1997) Histological Substrate of Atrial Biopsies in Patients with Lone Atrial Fibrillation. Circulation, 96, 1180-1184.
https://doi.org/10.1161/01.cir.96.4.1180
[8] 王越, 郑汝杰, 袁明月, 等. 系统性免疫炎症指数对老年心房颤动患者预后价值的研究[J]. 中华老年心脑血管病杂志, 2022, 24(2): 136-139.
[9] Bağcı, A. and Aksoy, F. (2021) Systemic Immune-Inflammation Index Predicts New-Onset Atrial Fibrillation after St Elevation Myocardial Infarction. Biomarkers in Medicine, 15, 731-739.
https://doi.org/10.2217/bmm-2020-0838
[10] Hinoue, T., Yatabe, T. and Nishida, O. (2023) Prediction of Postoperative Atrial Fibrillation with the Systemic Immune-Inflammation Index in Patients Undergoing Cardiac Surgery Using Cardiopulmonary Bypass: A Retrospective, Single-Center Study. Journal of Artificial Organs, 26, 112-118.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10047-022-01338-z
[11] Luo, Y., Zhang, J., Liu, T., Yin, Z., Jin, Y., Han, J., et al. (2022) The Systemic-Immune-Inflammation Index Predicts the Recurrence of Atrial Fibrillation after Cryomaze Concomitant with Mitral Valve Surgery. BMC Cardiovascular Disorders, 22, Article No. 45.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12872-022-02494-z
[12] Vílchez, J.A., Roldán, V., Hernández-Romero, D., Valdés, M., Lip, G.Y.H. and Marín, F. (2013) Biomarkers in Atrial Fibrillation: An Overview. International Journal of Clinical Practice, 68, 434-443.
https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcp.12304
[13] Wang, H., Han, J., Wang, Z., Yin, Z., Liu, Z., Jin, Y., et al. (2019) Efficacy of Cut-and-Sew Surgical Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation in Patients with Giant Left Atria Undergoing Mitral Valve Surgery: A Propensity-Matched Analysis. Seminars in Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, 31, 796-802.
https://doi.org/10.1053/j.semtcvs.2019.05.004
[14] Hu, B., Yang, X., Xu, Y., Sun, Y., Sun, C., Guo, W., et al. (2014) Systemic Immune-Inflammation Index Predicts Prognosis of Patients after Curative Resection for Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Clinical Cancer Research, 20, 6212-6222.
https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-14-0442
[15] Ad, N. (2007) The Cox-Maze Procedure: History, Results, and Predictors for Failure. Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology, 20, 65-71.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10840-007-9176-z
[16] Gillinov, A.M., Gelijns, A.C., Parides, M.K., DeRose, J.J., Moskowitz, A.J., Voisine, P., et al. (2015) Surgical Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation during Mitral-Valve Surgery. New England Journal of Medicine, 372, 1399-1409.
https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa1500528
[17] Wu, Z., Jiang, C., Li, J., Du, J., Bai, Y., Guo, X., Wang, W., Li, S., Jiang, C., Liu, N., et al. (2021) Effect of Family History of Atrial Fbrillation on Recurrence after Atrial Fbrillation Ablation: A Report from the Chinese Atrial Fbrillation Registry Study. Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology, 32, 678-685.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jce.14919
[18] Calkins, H., Hindricks, G., Cappato, R., Kim, Y., Saad, E.B., Aguinaga, L., et al. (2017) 2017 HRS/EHRA/ECAS/ APHRS/SOLAECE Expert Consensus Statement on Catheter and Surgical Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation. Heart Rhythm, 14, e275-e444.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm.2017.05.012
[19] Meyre, P., Sticherling, C., Spies, F., Aeschbacher, S., Blum, S., Voellmin, G., Madafari, A., Conen, D., Osswald, S., Kühne, M., et al. (2020) C-Reactive Protein for Prediction of Atrial Fbrillation Recurrence after Catheter Ablation. BMC Cardiovascular Disorders, 20, Article 427.
[20] Chen, S.A., Zhang, M.M., Zheng, M., Liu, F., Sun, L., Bao, Z.Y., Chen, F.K., Li, H.X. and Gu, X. (2020) The Preablation Monocyte/ High Density Lipoprotein Ratio Predicts the Late Recurrence of Paroxysmal Atrial Fbrillation after Radiofrequency Ablation. BMC Cardiovascular Disorders, 20, Article No. 401.
[21] McGarry, T.J. and Narayan, S.M. (2012) The Anatomical Basis of Pulmonary Vein Reconnection after Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 59, 939-941.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2011.11.032
[22] Cabrera-Bueno, F., Medina-Palomo, C., Ruiz-Salas, A., Flores, A., Rodríguez-Losada, N., Barrera, A., et al. (2015) Serum Levels of Interleukin-2 Predict the Recurrence of Atrial Fibrillation after Pulmonary Vein Ablation. Cytokine, 73, 74-78.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cyto.2015.01.026
[23] Kimura, T., Takatsuki, S., Inagawa, K., Katsumata, Y., Nishiyama, T., Nishiyama, N., et al. (2014) Serum Inflammation Markers Predicting Successful Initial Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation. Heart, Lung and Circulation, 23, 636-643.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hlc.2014.02.003
[24] Koyama, T., Tada, H., Sekiguchi, Y., Arimoto, T., Yamasaki, H., Kuroki, K., Machino, T., Tajiri, K., Zhu, X.D., Kanemoto-Igarashi, M. and Sugiyasu, A. (2010) Prevention of Atrial Fbrillation Recurrence with Corticosteroids after Radiofrequency Catheter Ablation: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 56, 1463-1472.
[25] Leong-Sit, P., Roux, J., Zado, E., Callans, D.J., Garcia, F., Lin, D., et al. (2011) Antiarrhythmics after Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation (5A Study): Six-Month Follow-Up Study. Circulation: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology, 4, 11-14.
https://doi.org/10.1161/circep.110.955393
[26] Chilukuri, K., Dukes, J., Dalal, D., Marine, J.E., Henrikson, C.A., Scherr, D., et al. (2009) Outcomes in Patients Requiring Cardioversion Following Catheter Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation. Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology, 21, 27-32.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-8167.2009.01593.x
[27] Bertaglia, E., Stabile, G., Senatore, G., Zoppo, F., Turco, P., Amellone, C., et al. (2005) Predictive Value of Early Atrial Tachyarrhythmias Recurrence after Circumferential Anatomical Pulmonary Vein Ablation. Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology, 28, 366-371.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-8159.2005.09516.x
[28] Vasamreddy, C.R., Lickfett, L., Jayam, V.K., Nasir, K., Bradley, D.J., Eldadah, Z., et al. (2004) Predictors of Recurrence Following Catheter Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation Using an Irrigated‐Tip Ablation Catheter. Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology, 15, 692-697.
https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1540-8167.2004.03538.x
[29] Kaitani, K., Inoue, K., Kobori, A., Nakazawa, Y., Ozawa, T., Kurotobi, T., et al. (2015) Efficacy of Antiarrhythmic Drugs Short-Term Use after Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation (EAST-AF) Trial. European Heart Journal, 37, 610-618.
https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehv501