Key result
Complete left atrial ablation with a single bipolar radiofrequency device yielded similar clinical outcomes but significantly reduced device costs compared to using an additional unipolar device (1245 vs 2403 euros; p<0.0001).
Why the study?
Does complete left atrial ablation with a single bipolar radiofrequency device reduce costs without compromising efficacy compared to using an additional unipolar device in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing cardiac surgery?
Cohort (n=103)
Does complete left atrial ablation with a single bipolar radiofrequency device reduce costs without compromising efficacy compared to using an additional unipolar device in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing cardiac surgery?
Absolute Event Rate: 1245% vs 2403%
p-value: p=<0.0001
Performing the mitral line with a single bipolar radiofrequency device during cardiac surgery is safe, effective for maintaining sinus rhythm, and significantly reduces device costs compared to using an additional unipolar device.
Single bipolar device associated with lower costs and similar outcomes in surgical AF; leaves open need for RCTs to confirm equivalence.
OBJECTIVE: Despite its efficacy and swiftness, bipolar radiofrequency is generally not used on the left isthmus for concern of injuring a coronary branch. Incomplete lesion sets or use of an additional unipolar device are often considered. We report a technique to perform a full left lesion set involving the mitral line using a standard bipolar radiofrequency device. METHODS: An innovative complete left atrial lesion set was performed using only bipolar radiofrequency in 70 consecutive patients (study group). In 67/70 patients (96%) mitral valve disease was the main indication to surgery. Atrial fibrillation was permanent in 42 patients (60%), persistent in 25 (36%) and paroxysmal in three patients (4%). After beating-heart pulmonary vein isolation on-pump, the coronary-free area of the AV groove was marked epicardially by sticking a needle into the left atrial wall, behind the coronary sinus. The projection of the needle marker on the mitral annulus was then identified through the atriotomy and an endo-epicardial ablation was performed with the bipolar device involving the atrial wall, the coronary sinus, up to the annulus. The lesion set was then completed by connecting the encirclings and the left appendage, which was then sutured. Follow-up was 100% complete. Results were compared with those of a control group of 33 patients receiving bipolar radiofrequency left atrial ablations and a mitral connecting line with a second unipolar device. RESULTS: All patients survived. No major complication occurred. Haematoma of the AV groove was observed during retrograde cardioplegia in one case. No myocardial ischaemia or re-exploration for bleeding (median 325 cc, interquartile range 250-442) occurred. Two out of 70 patients required a permanent pacemaker for AV block. Freedom from atrial fibrillation was 84% (95% CI: 75%, 93%) at 6 months and 81% (95% CI: 70%, 93%) at 1 year. One patient had left flutter. Comparison with the control group did not show any difference in clinical outcomes, but revealed bipolar ablation to the mitral annulus to abate the per patient cost of the ablation devices (1245+/-50 euro vs 2403+/-17 euro; p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Performing the mitral line with bipolar radiofrequency is safe and cost-effective. A complete left atrial ablation with a single bipolar radiofrequency device yields excellent clinical mid-term results.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Benussi et al. (2008) conducted a cohort in Atrial fibrillation and mitral valve disease (n=103). Complete left atrial ablation with a single bipolar radiofrequency device vs. Bipolar radiofrequency left atrial ablations and a mitral connecting line with a second unipolar device was evaluated on Per patient cost of the ablation devices (euros) (p=<0.0001). Complete left atrial ablation with a single bipolar radiofrequency device yielded similar clinical outcomes but significantly reduced device costs compared to using an additional unipolar device (1245 vs 2403 euros; p<0.0001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: