Surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation is associated with improved survival compared with appendage obliteration alone: An analysis of 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries

Prophylactic left atrial appendage ligation during coronary artery bypass grafting: A propensity score-matched analysis

OBJECTIVE

The study objective was to evaluate short-term outcomes and statewide practice patterns of prophylactic left atrial appendage ligation in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting without preoperative atrial fibrillation.

METHODS

Adult patients who underwent on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (2017-2023) within a regional collaborative were identified. Patients with a history of atrial fibrillation, previous cardiac surgery, or nondevice-based left atrial appendage ligation were excluded. Patients were stratified by left atrial appendage ligation status and were propensity score matched. Univariable analysis was used to compare short-term clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

Of 16,547 patients examined, 442 underwent prophylactic left atrial appendage ligation. The propensity score-matched cohort (439 in the prophylactic left atrial appendage ligation group, 439 in the no prophylactic left atrial appendage ligation group) was compared and had no significant differences in preoperative Congestive heart failure, Hypertension, Age ≥ 75 (doubled), Diabetes mellitus, prior Stroke, Transient ischemic attack or Thromboembolism (doubled), Vascular disease, Age 65 to 74, Sex category (female)(CHA2DS2-VASc) scores or operative variables. The prophylactic left atrial appendage ligation group had longer crossclamp time (82 vs 76 minutes, P = .001), intensive care unit hours (72 vs 66, P = .001), and length of stay (6.0 vs 6.0 days, P = .010); increased postoperative atrial fibrillation (35% vs 24%, P < .001); and more discharges on anticoagulation (17% vs 8.2%, P < .001). There were no significant differences in postoperative stroke (1.1% vs 2.1%, P = .423), readmission (13% vs 9.6%, P = .118), operative mortality (2.5% vs 1.6%, P = .480), or readmission for thrombotic or bleeding complications (0.7% vs 1.1%, P = .724). Hospitalization costs were significantly higher for the prophylactic left atrial appendage ligation group ($43,478 vs $40,645, P < .001). The rate of prophylactic left atrial appendage ligation during coronary artery bypass grafting increased from 1.61% (2017) to 5.65% (2023) (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite higher rates of postoperative atrial fibrillation, discharge on anticoagulation, and hospitalization costs in patients undergoing prophylactic left atrial appendage ligation during coronary artery bypass grafting, there was no difference in short-term clinical end points including stroke and operative mortality.

Atrial Fibrillation Management During Surgical vs Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

BACKGROUND

Societal guidelines support atrial fibrillation (AF) treatment during surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Recently, many patients with AF at low to intermediate risk are managed by transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Therefore, we evaluated longitudinal outcomes in these populations.

METHODS

The United States Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services inpatient claims database was evaluated for all beneficiaries with AF undergoing TAVR or SAVR with/without AF treatment (2018-2020). Treatment of AF included concomitant left atrial appendage obliteration, with/without surgical ablation, or endovascular appendage occlusion and/or catheter ablation at any time. Diagnosis-related group and International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, codes defined procedures with doubly robust risk adjustment across each group.

RESULTS

A total of 24,902 patients were evaluated (17,453 TAVR; 7,449 SAVR). Of patients undergoing SAVR, 3176 (42.6%) underwent AF treatment (SAVR+AF). Only 656 TAVR patients (4.5%) received AF treatment. Comparing well-balanced SAVR+AF vs SAVR vs TAVR, there were no differences in the in-hospital incidence of renal failure, bleeding, or stroke, but increased pacemaker requirement (odds ratio [OR], 3.45; P < .0001) and vascular injury (OR, 9.09; P < .0001) were noted in TAVR and higher hospital mortality (OR, 4.02; P < .0001) in SAVR+AF. SAVR+AF was associated with lower readmission for stroke compared with SAVR alone (hazard ratio [HR], 0.87; P = .029) and TAVR (HR, 0.68; P < .0001) and with improved survival vs TAVR (HR, 0.79; P = .019).

CONCLUSIONS

In Medicare beneficiaries with AF requiring aortic valve replacement, SAVR+AF was associated with improved longitudinal survival and freedom from stroke compared with TAVR. SAVR+AF treatment should be considered first-line therapy for patients with AF requiring aortic valve replacement.

Perioperative and mid-term outcomes of mitral valve surgery with and without concomitant surgical ablation for atrial fibrillation: a retrospective analysis

OBJECTIVES

We retrospectively analysed perioperative and mid-term outcomes for patients undergoing mitral valve surgery with and without atrial fibrillation.

METHODS

Patients who underwent mitral valve surgery between January 2018 and February 2023 were included and categorized into 3 groups: 'No AF' (no documented atrial fibrillation), 'AF no SA' (atrial fibrillation without surgical ablation) and 'AF and SA' (atrial fibrillation with concomitant surgical ablation). Groups were compared for perioperative and mid-term outcomes, including mortality, stroke, bleeding and pacemaker implantation. A P-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Of the 400 patients included, preoperative atrial fibrillation was present in 43%. Mean follow-up was 1.8 (standard deviation: 1.1) years. The patients who underwent surgical ablation for atrial fibrillation exhibited similar overall outcomes compared to patients without preoperative atrial fibrillation. Patients with untreated atrial fibrillation showed higher mortality ('No AF': 2.2% versus 'AF no SA': 8.3% versus 'AF and SA': 3.2%; P-value 0.027) and increased postoperative pacemaker implantation rates ('No AF': 5.7% versus 'AF no SA': 15.6% versus 'AF and SA': 7.9%, P-value: 0.011). In a composite analysis of adverse events (Mortality, Bleeding, Stroke), the highest incidence was observed in patients with untreated atrial fibrillation, while patients with treated atrial fibrillation had similar outcomes as those without preoperative documented atrial fibrillation ('No AF': 9.6% versus 'AF no SA': 20.2% versus 'AF and SA' 3: 9.5%, P-value: 0.018).

CONCLUSIONS

Concomitant surgical ablation should be considered in mitral valve surgery for atrial fibrillation, as it leads to similar mid-term outcomes compared to patients without preoperative documented atrial fibrillation.

The Society of Thoracic Surgeons 2023 Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Surgical Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation

The Society of Thoracic Surgeons 2023 Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Surgical Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation incorporate the most recent evidence for surgical ablation and left atrial appendage occlusion in different clinical scenarios. Substantial new evidence regarding the risks and benefits of surgical left atrial appendage occlusion and the long-term benefits of surgical ablation has been produced in the last 5 years. Compared with the 2017 clinical practice guideline, the current update has an emphasis on surgical ablation in first-time, nonemergent cardiac surgery and its long-term benefits, an extension of the recommendation to perform surgical ablation in all patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing first-time, nonemergent cardiac surgery, and a new class I recommendation for left atrial appendage occlusion in all patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing first-time, nonemergent cardiac surgery. Further guidance is provided for patients with structural heart disease and atrial fibrillation being considered for transcatheter valve repair or replacement, as well as patients in need of isolated left atrial appendage management who are not candidates for surgical ablation. The importance of a multidisciplinary team assessment, treatment planning, and long-term follow-up are reiterated in this clinical practice guideline with a class I recommendation, along with the other recommendations from the 2017 guidelines that remained unchanged in their class of recommendation and level of evidence.

Concomitant Surgical Ablation in Paroxysmal vs Persistent Atrial Fibrillation During Mitral Surgery

BACKGROUND

Despite prospective randomized evidence supporting concomitant treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF) during mitral valve (MV) surgery, variation in surgical management of AF remains. We assessed longitudinal outcomes after surgical treatment of persistent or paroxysmal AF during MV surgery in Medicare beneficiaries.

METHODS

All Medicare beneficiaries with a diagnosis of AF undergoing MV surgery (2018-2020) were evaluated. Patients were stratified by no AF treatment, left atrial appendage obliteration (LAAO) alone, or surgical ablation and LAAO (SA+LAAO). Doubly robust risk adjustment and subgroup analysis by persistent or paroxysmal AF were performed.

RESULTS

A total of 7517 patients with preoperative AF underwent MV surgery (32.1% no AF treatment, 23.1% LAAO alone, 44.7% SA+LAAO). After doubly robust risk adjustment, AF treatment with SA+LAAO or LAAO alone were associated with lower 3-year readmission for stroke or bleeding. However, SA+LAAO was associated with reduced 3-year mortality and readmission for AF or heart failure compared with no AF treatment or LAAO alone. Compared with no AF treatment or LAAO alone, SA+LAAO was associated with lower composite end point of stroke (hazard ratio, 0.75) or death (hazard ratio, 0.83) at 3 years. Subgroup analysis identified similar longitudinal benefits of SA+LAAO in patients with persistent or paroxysmal AF.

CONCLUSIONS

In Medicare beneficiaries with AF undergoing MV surgery, SA+LAAO was associated with improved longitudinal outcomes compared with LAAO alone or no AF treatment in patients with paroxysmal or persistent AF. These contemporary real-world data further clarify the benefit of SA+LAAO during MV surgery across all types of AF.

Surgical Coronary Revascularization in Patients With Underlying Atrial Fibrillation: State-of-the-Art Review

The number of individuals referred for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) with preoperative atrial fibrillation (AF) is reported to be 8% to 20%. Atrial fibrillation is a known marker of high-risk patients as it was repeatedly found to negatively influence survival. Therefore, when performing surgical revascularization, consideration should be given to the concomitant treatment of the arrhythmia, the clinical consequences of the arrhythmia itself, and the selection of adequate surgical techniques. This state-of-the-art review aimed to provide a comprehensive analysis of the current understanding of, advancements in, and optimal strategies for CABG in patients with underlying AF. The following topics are considered: stroke prevention, prophylaxis and occurrence of postoperative AF, the role of surgical ablation and left atrial appendage occlusion, and an on-pump vs off-pump strategy. Multiple acute complications can occur in patients with preexisting AF undergoing CABG, each of which can have a significant effect on patient outcomes. Long-term results in these patients and the future perspectives of this scientific area were also addressed. Preoperative arrhythmia should always be considered for surgical ablation because such an approach improves prognosis without increasing perioperative risk. While planning a revascularization strategy, it should be noted that although off-pump coronary artery bypass provides better short-term outcomes, conventional on-pump approach may be beneficial at long-term follow-up. By collecting the current evidence, addressing knowledge gaps, and offering practical recommendations, this state-of-the-art review serves as a valuable resource for clinicians involved in the management of patients with AF undergoing CABG, ultimately contributing to improved outcomes and enhanced patient care.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of left atrial appendage closure's influence on early and long-term mortality and stroke

Objective

Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) concomitant to heart surgery in patients with underlying atrial fibrillation (AF) has gained attention because of long-term reduction of thromboembolic complications. As of mortality benefits in the setting of non-AF, data from both observational studies and randomized controlled trials are conflicting.

Methods

On-line databases were screened for studies comparing LAAC versus no LAAC concomitant to other heart surgery. End points assessed were all-cause mortality and stroke at early and longest-available follow-up. Subgroup analyses stratified on preoperative AF were performed. Risk ratios (RR) with 95% CIs served as primary statistics.

Results

Electronic search yielded 25 studies (N = 660 [158 patients]). There was no difference between LAAC and no LAAC in terms of early mortality. In the overall population analysis, LAAC reduced long-term mortality (RR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.74-1.00; P = .05; I 2 = 88%), reduced early stroke risk by 19% (RR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.72-0.93; P = .002; I 2 = 57%), and reduced late stroke risk by 13% (RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.84-0.90; P < .001; I 2 = 58%). Subgroup analysis showed lower mortality (RR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.72-1.01; P = .06; I 2 = 91%), short-, and long-term stroke risk reduction only in patients with preoperative AF (RR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.71-0.93; P = .003; I 2 = 71% and RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.84-0.91; P < .001; I 2 = 70%, respectively). No benefit of LAAC in patients without AF was found.

Conclusions

Concomitant LAAC was associated with reduced stroke rates at early and long-term and possibly reduced all-cause mortality at the long-term follow-up but the benefits were limited to patients with preoperative AF. There is not enough evidence to support routine concomitant LAAC in non-AF settings.

Concomitant Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation in Isolated Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting

BACKGROUND

Societal guidelines support concomitant management of atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. To assess real-world adoption and outcomes, this study evaluated Medicare beneficiaries with AF who underwent isolated coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) with surgical ablation (SA) or left atrial appendage obliteration (LAAO) or both procedures in combination (SA + LAAO).

METHODS

The US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services inpatient claims database identified all patients with AF who underwent isolated CABG from 2018 to 2020. Diagnosis-related group and International Classification of Diseases-10th revision procedure codes defined covariates for doubly robust risk adjustment.

RESULTS

A total of 19,524 patients with preoperative AF who underwent isolated CABG were stratified by SA + LAAO (3475 patients; 17.8%), LAAO only (4541 patients; 23.3%), or no AF treatment (11,508 patients; 58.9%). After doubly robust risk adjustment, longitudinal analysis highlighted that concomitant AF treatment with SA + LAAO (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74; P = .049) or LAAO alone (HR, 0.75; P = . 031) was associated with a significant reduction in readmission for stroke at 3 years compared with no AF treatment. Furthermore, SA + LAAO (HR, 0.86; P = .016) but not LAAO alone (HR, 0.97; P = .573) was associated with improved survival compared with no AF treatment. Finally, SA + LAAO was associated with a superior composite outcome of freedom from stroke or death at 3 years compared with LAAO alone (HR, 0.86;, P = .033) or no AF treatment (HR, 0.81; P = .001).

CONCLUSIONS

In Medicare beneficiaries with AF who underwent isolated CABG, concomitant AF treatment was associated with reduced 3-year readmission for stroke. SA + LAAO was associated with superior reduction in stroke or death at 3 years compared with LAAO alone or no AF treatment.

Evaluation of sex differences in the receipt of concomitant atrial fibrillation procedures during nonmitral cardiac surgery

OBJECTIVE

Women are less likely to receive guideline-recommended cardiovascular care, but evaluation of sex-based disparities in cardiac surgical procedures is limited. Receipt of concomitant atrial fibrillation (AF) procedures during nonmitral cardiac surgery was compared by sex for patients with preoperative AF.

METHODS

Patients with preoperative AF undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting and/or aortic valve replacement at any of the 33 hospitals in Michigan from 2014 to 2022 were included. Patients with prior cardiac surgery, transcatheter AF procedure, or emergency/salvage status were excluded. Hierarchical logistic regression identified predictors of concomitant AF procedures, account for hospital and surgeon as random effects.

RESULTS

Of 5460 patients with preoperative AF undergoing nonmitral cardiac surgery, 24% (n = 1291) were women with a mean age of 71 years. Women were more likely to have paroxysmal (vs persistent) AF than men (80% vs 72%; P < .001) and had a higher mean predicted risk of mortality (5% vs 3%; P < .001). The unadjusted rate of concomitant AF procedure was 59% for women and 67% for men (P < .001). After risk adjustment, women had 26% lower adjusted odds of concomitant AF procedure than men (adjusted odds ratio, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.64-0.86; P < .001). Female sex was the risk factor associated with the lowest odds of concomitant AF procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

Women are less likely to receive guideline recommended concomitant AF procedure during nonmitral surgery. Identification of barriers to concomitant AF procedure in women may improve treatment of AF.

The impact of permanent pacemaker implantation on long-term survival after cardiac surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

The long-term impact of permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation on survival after cardiac surgery remains ill defined. We aimed to investigate the effect of PPM on survival and explore factors driving outcomes using meta-regression according to the type of surgery.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched through October 2023 to identify studies reporting the long-term outcomes of PPM implantation. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality during follow-up. The secondary outcome was heart failure rehospitalization. The subgroup analysis and meta-regression analysis were performed according to the type of surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 28 studies met the inclusion criteria. 183,555 patients (n = 6298; PPM, n = 177,257; no PPM) were analyzed for all-cause mortality, with a weighted median follow-up of 79.7 months. PPM implantation was associated with increased risks of all-cause mortality during follow-up (hazard ratio, 1.22; confidence interval, 1.08-1.38, P < .01) and heart failure rehospitalization (hazard ratio, 1.24; confidence interval, 1.01-1.52, P = .04). Meta-regression demonstrated the adverse impact of PPM was less prominent in patients undergoing mitral or tricuspid valve surgery, whereas studies with a greater proportion with aortic valve replacement were associated with worse outcomes. Similarly, a greater proportion with atrioventricular block as an indication of PPM was associated with worse survival.

CONCLUSIONS

PPM implantation after cardiac surgery is associated with a greater risk of long-term all-cause mortality and heart failure rehospitalization. This impact is more prominent in patients undergoing aortic valve surgery or atrioventricular block as an indication than those undergoing mitral or tricuspid valve surgery.

Surgical ablation, left atrial appendage occlusion or both? Nationwide registry analysis of cardiac surgery patients with underlying atrial fibrillation

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate in-hospital outcomes and long-term survival of patients undergoing cardiac surgery with preoperative atrial fibrillation (AF). We compared different strategies, including no-AF treatment, left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) alone, concomitant surgical ablation (SA) alone or both.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis using the KROK registry included all patients with preoperative diagnosis of AF who underwent cardiac surgery in Poland between between January 2012 and December 2022. Risk adjustment was performed using regression analysis with inverse probability weighting of propensity scores. We assessed 6-year survival with Cox proportional hazards models. Sensitivity analysis was performed based on index cardiac procedure.

RESULTS

Initially, 42 510 patients with preoperative AF were identified, and, after exclusion, 33 949 included in the final analysis. A total of 1107 (3.26%) received both SA and LAAO, 1484 (4.37%) received LAAO alone, 3921 (11.55%) SA alone and the remaining 27 437 (80.82%) had no AF-directed treatment. As compared to no treatment, all strategies were associated with survival benefit over 6-year follow-up. A gradient of treatment was observed with the highest benefit associated with SA + LAAO followed by SA alone and LAAO alone (log-rank P < 0.001). Mortality benefits were reflected when stratified by surgery type with the exception of aortic valve surgery where LAAO alone fare worse than no treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with preoperative AF undergoing cardiac surgery, surgical management of AF, particularly SA + LAAO, was associated with lower 6-year mortality. These findings support the benefits of incorporating SA and LAAO in the management of AF during cardiac surgery.