## 3 Results
### Left Atrial Hemodynamic Assessment  
Control mean LA stasis was lower than in the pre-ablation cohort (30 \(\pm\) 12% vs. 47 \(\pm\) 18%, \(p\) < 0.001). Mean LA stasis was reduced in the post-ablation cohort as compared with pre-ablation (36 \(\pm\) 15% vs. 47 \(\pm\) 18%, \(p\) = 0.002), Figure 2A. Both pre- and post-ablation cohorts showed elevated standard deviation LA stasis as compared with controls (23 \(\pm\) 5% vs. 17 \(\pm\) 3%, \(p\) < 0.001; 22 \(\pm\) 5% vs. 17 \(\pm\) 3%, \(p\) = 0.001, Figure 2B). Similarly, mean LA velocity and standard deviation also decreased, Figure 2C,D.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Control (\(n\) = 24)** & **Pre-Ablation (\(n\) = 108)** & **Post-Ablation (\(n\) = 40)** & \(p\)**-Value** \\ \hline Demographics & & & & \\ Age (years) & 38 \(\pm\) 15 & 58 \(\pm\) 10 & 58 \(\pm\) 11 & \textless{}0.001 \\ Sex \(n\) (\% women) & 7 (29) & 26 (24) & 8 (20) & 0.707 \\ Height (m) & 1.73 \(\pm\) 0.10 & 1.78 \(\pm\) 0.09 & 1.79 \(\pm\) 0.07 & 0.064 \\ Weight (Kg) & 75 \(\pm\) 19 & 90 \(\pm\) 18 & 87 \(\pm\) 16 & 0.001 \\ Body Surface Area (m\({}^{2}\)) & 1.89 \(\pm\) 0.28 & 2.11 \(\pm\) 0.25 & 2.07 \(\pm\) 0.21 & 0.001 \\ Heart Rate (bpm) & 65 \(\pm\) 11 & 62 \(\pm\) 13 & 65 \(\pm\) 13 & 0.541 \\ Systolic Blood Pressure (mmHg) & 114 \(\pm\) 15 & 119 \(\pm\) 14 & 117 \(\pm\) 26 & 0.479 \\ Diastolic Blood Pressure (mmHg) & 64 \(\pm\) 12 & 71 \(\pm\) 10 & 67 \(\pm\) 7 & 0.011 \\ Stroke Risk Score & & & & \\ CHA\({}_{2}\)DS\({}_{2}\)-VASc Score & 0.33 \(\pm\) 0.48 & 1.83 \(\pm\) 0.98 & 0.81 \(\pm\) 0.88 & \textless{}0.001 \\ Score 0 (\(n\)) & 16 & 2 & 21 & \\ Score 1 (\(n\)) & 8 & 47 & 10 & \\ Score 2 (\(n\)) & 0 & 34 & 8 & \\ Score 3 (\(n\)) & 0 & 18 & 1 & \\ Score 4 (\(n\)) & 0 & 6 & 0 & \\ Score 5 (\(n\)) & 0 & 1 & 0 & \\ Left Atrium & 66 \(\pm\) 15 & 88 \(\pm\) 29 & 74 \(\pm\) 20 & \textless{}0.001 \\ Left Ventricle & & & & \\ End-Diastolic Volume (mL) & 154 \(\pm\) 31 & 171 \(\pm\) 35 & 158 \(\pm\) 30 & 0.026 \\ End-Systolic Volume (mL) & 54 \(\pm\) 11 & 69 \(\pm\) 20 & 65 \(\pm\) 16 & 0.003 \\ Ejection Fraction (\%) & 65 \(\pm\) 4 & 60 \(\pm\) 7 & 59 \(\pm\) 6 & 0.004 \\ Left Ventricle Mass (g) & 100 \(\pm\) 29 & 114 \(\pm\) 29 & 113 \(\pm\) 23 & 0.07 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 1: Data baseline.  
When comparing age groups, subjects older than 60-year-old showed an increased LA volume compared with the younger group of 50-year-old (88 \(\pm\) 29% vs. 73 \(\pm\) 19%, \(p\) = 0.01, Figure 3A). Standard deviation LA stasis increased with age when considering all subjects (\(p\) < 0.001, Figure 3B). Subjects between 50 and 60 years showed an increment of 13% in standard deviation LA stasis as compared with the younger cohort of 50-year-old (\(p\) = 0.008). Similarly, an increment of 21% was observed in the older cohort of \(>\)60-year-old (\(p\) < 0.001). LA volume was \(>\)100 mL in 20% of subjects with an increased stasis compared with a lower LA volume of 60 mL, which included 45 subjects (23 \(\pm\) 6% vs. 20 \(\pm\) 5%, \(p\) = 0.033). Overall, subjects with risk score \(>\) 2 (\(n\) = 26) showed more increased standard deviation LA stasis than those with a risk score of 0 (\(n\) = 122) (24 \(\pm\) 5% vs. 21 \(\pm\) 5%, \(p\) = 0.031). No association was found with LA peak velocity, mean velocity, or standard deviation velocity.