Why the study?
There was a need to understand the difference in the influence of thoracoscopic surgical ablation and catheter ablation on clinical outcomes in patients with AF.
Does thoracoscopic surgical ablation improve freedom from atrial tachyarrhythmia compared to catheter ablation in patients with atrial fibrillation?
Does thoracoscopic surgical ablation improve freedom from atrial tachyarrhythmia compared to catheter ablation in patients with atrial fibrillation?
Thoracoscopic surgical ablation provides greater freedom from atrial tachyarrhythmia than catheter ablation in patients with atrial fibrillation, but is associated with a higher risk of severe adverse events and longer procedure and hospitalization times.
TSA may improve arrhythmia freedom over CA in AF but increases severe adverse events; leaves open optimal selection pending randomized confirmation.
OBJECTIVES: There is an urgent need to understand the difference in the influence of thoracoscopic surgical ablation (TSA) and catheter ablation (CA) on clinical outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). This meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials aimed to examine the efficacy and safety of TSA versus CA in patients with AF. METHODS: Databases including EMBASE, Clinical Trials, PubMed and Cochrane Central Registered Control System were screened for the retrieval of articles. A direct meta-analysis of TSA versus CA was conducted. The I2 test analysis was performed to evaluate heterogeneity. The Begg-Mazumdar test and the Harbord-Egger test were used to detect publication bias. The primary efficacy outcome was freedom from atrial tachyarrhythmia, while the primary safety outcome was severe adverse event (SAE) occurrence. RESULTS: Of the 860 identified articles, 6, comprising 466 participants, were finally included. The rate of freedom from AT was higher in the TSA group (75%) than in the CA group (57.1%) (odds ratio 0.41; 95% confidence interval 0.2-0.85; P = 0.02; I2 = 57%). A larger number of SAEs were observed in the TSA group than in the CA group (odds ratio 0.16; 95% confidence interval 0.006-0.46; P = 0.0006; I2 = 44%). The result of the subgroup analysis of 3 studies that enrolled AF patients without a history of ablation showed that the incidence of AT was comparable in both arms. The ablation procedure and hospitalization durations were longer in the TSA arm. CONCLUSIONS: In our study, TSA was associated with better efficacy but a higher rate of SAEs compared to CA. In addition, TSA did not show better efficacy results as the first invasive procedure in the sub-analysis of patients with paroxysmal AF or early persistent AF. Therefore, doctors should recommend either TSA or CA to patients with AF after due consideration of the aforementioned findings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yi et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: