Why the study?
How do the endocardial Cox-Maze procedure, epicardial surgical ablation, and hybrid procedure compare in safety and efficacy for patients with stand-alone atrial fibrillation?
How do the endocardial Cox-Maze procedure, epicardial surgical ablation, and hybrid procedure compare in safety and efficacy for patients with stand-alone atrial fibrillation?
The minimally invasive Cox-Maze procedure with cardiopulmonary bypass support appears to be the most effective and safe option for stand-alone atrial fibrillation compared to epicardial and hybrid ablation procedures.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Positions minimally invasive Cox-Maze as preferred stand-alone AF ablation; strengthens evidence for endocardial over epicardial or hybrid approaches.
There is a growing trend to perform off-bypass surgical ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) because it is perceived to be safer and more effective than the Cox-Maze procedure with cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) support. In this systematic review, we compared three minimally invasive stand-alone surgical ablation procedures for AF: the endocardial Cox-Maze procedure, epicardial surgical ablation and a hybrid epicardial surgical and catheter-based endocardial ablation procedure (hybrid procedure). Relevant studies were identified in MEDLINE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. From 565 initial studies, 37 were included in this review. The total number of patients across all studies was 1877 (range 10-139). Two studies reported on endocardial Cox-Maze procedures (n = 145), 26 reported on epicardial surgical ablation (n = 1382) and 9 reported on hybrid surgical ablation (n = 350). For minimally invasive Cox-Maze, epicardial and hybrid groups, operative mortality rates were 0, 0.5 and 0.9%, perioperative permanent pacemaker insertion rates were 3.5, 2.7 and 1.5%, incidence of conversion to median sternotomy was 0, 2.4 and 2.5%, and reoperation for bleeding was 1.0, 1.5 and 2.2%, with mean length of stay (days) of 5.4, 6.0 and 4.6, respectively. At 12 months, rates of sinus rhythm restoration were 93, 80 and 70%, and sinus restoration without anti-arrhythmic medications was 87, 72 and 71%, for Cox-Maze, epicardial and hybrid procedures, respectively. Of the three procedures, the minimally invasive Cox-Maze procedure with CPB support was most effective for the treatment of stand-alone AF and had important safety advantages in conversion to sternotomy and major bleeding. The minimally invasive Cox-Maze procedure with CPB support also demonstrated the potential for a higher success rate 12 months following the procedure.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Je et al. (2015) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: