Why the study?
Atrial fibrillation management is rapidly evolving, particularly for patients intolerant to medical therapy, prompting this review comparing biatrial versus isolated left atrial lesion sets for ablation.
Does a biatrial lesion set improve maintenance of sinus rhythm compared to an isolated left atrial lesion set in patients with atrial fibrillation?
Does a biatrial lesion set improve maintenance of sinus rhythm compared to an isolated left atrial lesion set in patients with atrial fibrillation?
While more invasive, biatrial ablation is more efficacious than isolated left atrial ablation for maintaining sinus rhythm in patients with atrial fibrillation.
May inform lesion set selection in surgical AF ablation; leaves open definitive risk-benefit data from RCTs.
OBJECTIVE: Atrial fibrillation management is rapidly evolving, particularly for patients who are intolerant to medical therapy. Several catheter-based, surgical, and hybrid approaches currently exist, each with unique benefits that may be harnessed to provide optimal outcomes for these patients. This review focuses on the use of a biatrial lesion set versus an isolated left atrial lesion set for ablation. METHODS: Major representative articles for each ablation strategy were identified and included. Terms searched on PubMed, Google Scholar, and Scopus included "atrial fibrillation ablation," "atrial fibrillation surgery," and "maze procedure," among others. Additional articles were included based on expert opinion. RESULTS: The complete Cox maze biatrial lesion set has the highest efficacy but requires cardiopulmonary bypass. An isolated left atrial lesion set can also be performed, and these approaches are often less invasive but not as efficacious as the traditional complete maze operation. CONCLUSIONS: Although biatrial ablation may carry a higher risk of conduction abnormalities than isolated left atrial ablation in the setting of atrial fibrillation, biatrial ablation is more efficacious in maintaining sinus rhythm.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sharaf et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: