Key result
Maze IV procedure for concomitant AF achieves ~74% freedom from recurrence.
Why the study?
Does the Maze IV procedure prevent recurrence of atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter in patients with concomitant atrial fibrillation?
Cohort (n=46)
No
Does the Maze IV procedure prevent recurrence of atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter in patients with concomitant atrial fibrillation?
The Maze IV procedure for concomitant atrial fibrillation demonstrates a good mid-term success rate of 73.7% freedom from arrhythmia recurrence.
BACKGROUND: We performed a retrospective analysis of the maze IV procedures performed in our surgical department for concomitant atrial fibrillation. METHODS: Preoperative, in-hospital and postoperative follow-up data were collected from 46 consecutive patients who underwent the maze IV operation between April 2006 and December 2010. All electrocardiograms and Holters were reviewed. RESULTS: One patient died in-hospital. During a mean follow-up of 25 +/- 16.3 months seven patients died: two related to a hemorrhagic stroke, one due to right ventricular failure, the remainder deaths were not cardiac related. The success rate, defined as no recurrence of AF or atrial flutter with a blanking period of 6 months postoperatively, was 73.7%. Plots of probability of freedom of atrial fibrillation over time are drawn and reach a stable level after one year. CONCLUSIONS: The mid term results of the maze IV procedures for concomitant atrial fibrillation are very good. The results are stable for the remainder of follow-up.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ballaux et al. (2014) conducted a cohort in Concomitant atrial fibrillation (n=46). Maze IV procedure was evaluated on Success rate (no recurrence of AF or atrial flutter with a blanking period of 6 months postoperatively). The Maze IV procedure for concomitant atrial fibrillation achieved a 73.7% success rate (freedom from AF or atrial flutter recurrence) over a mean follow-up of 25 months.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: