New‐Onset Atrial Fibrillation After Typical Flutter Ablation: Risk‐Stratified Monitoring Using Implantable Loop Recorders

ABSTRACT Background Atrial flutter and atrial fibrillation (AF) arise from a common arrhythmogenic atrial substrate and frequently coexist in the same patient over the course of their lifetime. We aimed to examine the true incidence and risk factors associated with new‐onset AF after successful typical atrial flutter ablation in a real‐world population. Methods We performed a single‐center retrospective cohort study of adults who underwent atrial flutter ablation and received an implantable loop recorder (ILR) between 2019 and 2024 as part of a systematic post‐ablation monitoring practice. Demographic and clinical variables were collected from the electronic medical record system. Cox proportional‐hazards models and multivariable logistic regression were employed to identify independent predictors of AF, while the cumulative incidence of AF was estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method, and clinically relevant risk thresholds were subsequently derived. Results Among 95 patients (mean age 69.5 ± 7.9 years; 77.9% male; mean CHA 2 DS 2 ‐VASc 3.3) followed for a median of 44.7 months (IQR 34.5–49.0), AF was detected in 61 (64.2%). By Kaplan–Meier estimation the cumulative incidence of AF was 30% at 3 months, 46% at 1 year, and 58% at 2 years; the median time to detection among affected patients was 124 days (IQR 13–385). Patients with detected AF had a larger left atrial volume index (LAVI; 35.2 vs. 28.2 mL/m 2 , p <0.001) and lower LVEF (53.1% vs. 59.6%, p <0.001) as well as higher incidence of heart failure ( p = 0.032). LAVI (adjusted OR 1.10 per mL/m 2 , 95% CI 1.03–1.17; p = 0.006) and a reduced LVEF (≤50%; adjusted OR 9.2, 95% CI 1.9–44.5; p = 0.006) were independent predictors (AUC 0.79), and both remained independent in a Cox model (LAVI adjusted HR 1.04 per mL/m 2 ; LVEF ≤50% adjusted HR 2.2, 95% CI 1.3–3.9). A LAVI threshold of ≥26 mL/m 2 functioned as a rule‐out (sensitivity 92%), whereas LVEF ≤50% functioned as a rule‐in (specificity 94%, PPV 92%); no single threshold or combination achieved both high sensitivity and high specificity. On stratified analysis the 2‐year cumulative incidence of AF was 70% versus 20% above and below the LAVI threshold (log‐rank p <0.001) and 73% versus 53% by the LVEF threshold ( p = 0.001). Conclusions Continuous post‐ablation monitoring revealed AF in roughly two‐thirds of patients after flutter ablation, often emerging several months following the procedure. More advanced atrial remodeling and impaired ventricular function were independent predictors of higher risk, providing practical and accessible thresholds to guide clinical decisions about which patients warrant prolonged rhythm surveillance and anticoagulation reinitiation after flutter ablation.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology
Published
2026-10-27
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/pace.70478
Primary Topic
Atrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

New‐Onset Atrial Fibrillation After Typical Flutter Ablation: Risk‐Stratified Monitoring Using Implantable Loop Recorders

Darshine Venugopal, Sami J. Shoura, Shreyas Singireddy, Timir S. Baman et al.
Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology
Atrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
article

New‐Onset Atrial Fibrillation After Typical Flutter Ablation: Risk‐Stratified Monitoring Using Implantable Loop Recorders

Darshine Venugopal, Sami J. Shoura, Shreyas Singireddy, Timir S. Baman, Kyle Coombes, Ragavendar Saravanabavanandan, Amit P. Mehrotra, Siddharth Bajaj, Siddarth Shah, Salman Ahsan, Yash Patel
article en

Abstract

ABSTRACT Background Atrial flutter and atrial fibrillation (AF) arise from a common arrhythmogenic atrial substrate and frequently coexist in the same patient over the course of their lifetime. We aimed to examine the true incidence and risk factors associated with new‐onset AF after successful typical atrial flutter ablation in a real‐world population. Methods We performed a single‐center retrospective cohort study of adults who underwent atrial flutter ablation and received an implantable loop recorder (ILR) between 2019 and 2024 as part of a systematic post‐ablation monitoring practice. Demographic and clinical variables were collected from the electronic medical record system. Cox proportional‐hazards models and multivariable logistic regression were employed to identify independent predictors of AF, while the cumulative incidence of AF was estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method, and clinically relevant risk thresholds were subsequently derived. Results Among 95 patients (mean age 69.5 ± 7.9 years; 77.9% male; mean CHA 2 DS 2 ‐VASc 3.3) followed for a median of 44.7 months (IQR 34.5–49.0), AF was detected in 61 (64.2%). By Kaplan–Meier estimation the cumulative incidence of AF was 30% at 3 months, 46% at 1 year, and 58% at 2 years; the median time to detection among affected patients was 124 days (IQR 13–385). Patients with detected AF had a larger left atrial volume index (LAVI; 35.2 vs. 28.2 mL/m 2 , p <0.001) and lower LVEF (53.1% vs. 59.6%, p <0.001) as well as higher incidence of heart failure ( p = 0.032). LAVI (adjusted OR 1.10 per mL/m 2 , 95% CI 1.03–1.17; p = 0.006) and a reduced LVEF (≤50%; adjusted OR 9.2, 95% CI 1.9–44.5; p = 0.006) were independent predictors (AUC 0.79), and both remained independent in a Cox model (LAVI adjusted HR 1.04 per mL/m 2 ; LVEF ≤50% adjusted HR 2.2, 95% CI 1.3–3.9). A LAVI threshold of ≥26 mL/m 2 functioned as a rule‐out (sensitivity 92%), whereas LVEF ≤50% functioned as a rule‐in (specificity 94%, PPV 92%); no single threshold or combination achieved both high sensitivity and high specificity. On stratified analysis the 2‐year cumulative incidence of AF was 70% versus 20% above and below the LAVI threshold (log‐rank p <0.001) and 73% versus 53% by the LVEF threshold ( p = 0.001). Conclusions Continuous post‐ablation monitoring revealed AF in roughly two‐thirds of patients after flutter ablation, often emerging several months following the procedure. More advanced atrial remodeling and impaired ventricular function were independent predictors of higher risk, providing practical and accessible thresholds to guide clinical decisions about which patients warrant prolonged rhythm surveillance and anticoagulation reinitiation after flutter ablation.

Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology
Peoria campus of the University of Illinois System (US)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 11%
Atrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Laika access coming soon