Why the study?
Does the radiofrequency Maze procedure restore sinus rhythm and atrial contractility in patients with mitral disease and atrial fibrillation?
Does the radiofrequency Maze procedure restore sinus rhythm and atrial contractility in patients with mitral disease and atrial fibrillation?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The radiofrequency Maze procedure effectively restores sinus rhythm and atrial contractility in patients with mitral disease and atrial fibrillation, with shorter preoperative arrhythmia duration predicting better outcomes.
BACKGROUND: Maze procedure aims at restoring sinus rhythm (SR) and atrial contractility (AC). This study evaluated multiple aspects of AC recovery and their relationship with SR regain after ablation. METHODS: 122 mitral and fibrillating patients underwent radiofrequency Maze. Rhythm check and echocardiographic control of biatrial contractility were performed at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. A multivariate Cox analysis of risk factors for absence of AC recuperation was applied. RESULTS: At 2-years follow-up, SR was achieved in 79% of patients. SR-AC coexistence increased from 76% until 98%, while biatrial contraction detection augmented from 84 to 98% at late stage. Shorter preoperative arrhythmia duration was the only common predictor of SR-AC restoring, while pulmonary artery pressure (PAP) negatively influenced AC recuperation. Early AC restoration favored future freedom from arrhythmia recurrence. Minor LA dimensions correlated with improved future A/E value and vice versa. Right atrial (RA) contractility restoring favored better left ventricular (LV) performance and volumes. CONCLUSIONS: SR and left AC are two interrelated Maze objectives. Factors associated with arrhythmia "chronic state" (PAP and arrhythmia duration) are negative predictors of procedural success. Our results suggest an association between postoperative LA dimensions and "kick" restoring and an influence of RA contraction onto LV function.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Loardi et al. (2015) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: