Key result
Biatrial ablation is linked to ~7% greater absolute freedom from atrial arrhythmia recurrence versus left atrial ablation.
Why the study?
Does a biatrial ablation lesion set compared to a left atrial lesion set improve freedom from atrial arrhythmia recurrence in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation undergoing open heart surgery?
Cohort (n=588)
Does a biatrial ablation lesion set compared to a left atrial lesion set improve freedom from atrial arrhythmia recurrence in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation undergoing open heart surgery?
Hazard Ratio: 3.26 (95% CI 1.33–7.99)
Absolute Event Rate: 91.9% vs 85.3%
p-value: p=0.049
In patients undergoing open heart surgery, concomitant biatrial ablation reduces atrial arrhythmia recurrence compared to left atrial ablation but significantly increases the risk of sinus node dysfunction requiring pacemaker implantation.
Biatrial ablation may improve arrhythmia freedom in surgical AF patients; leaves open net benefit pending RCTs weighing pacemaker risk.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the outcomes of left atrial ablation and biatrial (BA) ablation in patients with persistent and long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation undergoing open heart surgery. METHODS: Between January 2007 and December 2016, 588 consecutive patients with either persistent (20.9%) or long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation (79.1%) were enrolled in this study. To reduce between-group differences, propensity score-matched groups (156 patients/group) were obtained, with similar preoperative and perioperative characteristics. RESULTS: The propensity score-matched left atrial and BA groups did not differ regarding 30-day mortality (1.9% vs 0.6%; P = 0.617), 5-year overall survival (93.5 ± 2.2% vs 92.8 ± 2.9%, P = 0.998) or survival free from thromboembolic events (97.1 ± 2.8% vs 96.2 ± 2.7%, P = 0.309). The BA lesion set was more beneficial in terms of freedom from atrial arrhythmia recurrence (85.3 ± 4.5% vs 91.9 ± 3.1%, P = 0.049; hazard ratio 3.26; 95% confidence interval 1.33-7.99), but it was associated with higher pacemaker implantation rate (3.8% vs 17.3%; P < 0.001) due to sinus node dysfunction. There was no significant between-group difference regarding the incidence of atrioventricular conduction disturbances (3.2% vs 7.0%, respectively; P = 0.211). CONCLUSIONS: The 2 lesion sets (left atrial and BA) are associated with similar 30-day mortality, survival rates, incidences of embolic events and atrioventricular conduction disturbances. In patients with persistent atrial fibrillation, concomitant surgical ablation with BA lesion set provided better freedom from atrial arrhythmia recurrence, but BA ablation was associated with a higher incidence of sinus node dysfunction and a higher rate of pacemaker implantation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bogachev‐Prokophiev et al. (2018) conducted a cohort in Persistent and long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation (n=588). Biatrial (BA) ablation vs. Left atrial ablation was evaluated on Freedom from atrial arrhythmia recurrence (HR 3.26, 95% CI 1.33-7.99, p=0.049). Biatrial ablation during open heart surgery was associated with greater freedom from atrial arrhythmia recurrence compared to left atrial ablation (91.9% vs 85.3%; HR 3.26, 95% CI 1.33-7.99, P=0.049).
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: