The maze IV operation is not always the best choice: Matching the procedure to the patient

Late Survival Benefits of Concomitant Surgical Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation During Cardiac Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The long-term survival benefits after surgical ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) during cardiac surgery were not confirmed in previous randomized controlled trials or meta-analyses. This study aimed to investigate the long-term efficacy of surgical ablation in patients with AF. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were searched to identify studies comparing concomitant surgical AF ablation with no surgical ablation during cardiac surgery. The primary outcome was long-term all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were stroke, heart failure rehospitalization, major bleeding, freedom from AF, and permanent pacemaker implantation during follow-up. To minimize confounding, only adjusted outcomes were used from observational studies. A total of 38 studies met the inclusion criteria. Of those, 9 randomized controlled trials and 15 observational studies with 41,678 patients (surgical ablation: n = 19,125; no surgical ablation: n = 22,553) were analyzed for all-cause mortality, with a weighted median follow-up of 62.0 months. Surgical ablation was associated with decreased risks of long-term mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 0.78, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.71 to 0.84), stroke (HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.76), heart failure rehospitalization (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.87 to 0.96), and more freedom from AF during follow-up (relative risk 1.93, 95% CI 1.50 to 2.49), whereas surgical ablation was associated with a higher risk of permanent pacemaker implantation during follow-up (HR 1.35, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.77). There was no significant difference in major bleeding during follow-up between the 2 groups. In patients with AF who underwent cardiac surgery, surgical ablation was associated with decreased risks of long-term mortality, stroke, and heart failure rehospitalization compared with patients with untreated AF. Given that the survival benefits were predominantly observed in observational studies, further randomized trials are necessary to confirm these findings.

A propensity matched comparison of robotic vs. traditional minimal access approach for mitral valve repair with concomitant cryoablation

Background

Atrial fibrillation (AF) occurs frequently in patients with mitral valve disease. Results of cryoablation concomitant with either minimally invasive video-assisted [minimally invasive mitral valve surgery (MIMVS)] or with robotic-assisted (RMV) mitral valve surgery have previously been separately reported. However, there are up-to-date no studies comparing the two procedures in terms of safety, efficacy, and mid-term follow-up.

Methods

Between January 2017 and March 2022, 294 patients underwent MIMVS, and 187 patients underwent RMV at our institution. After 1:1 propensity score matching using 22 preoperative variables, the study included 104 patients. Group 1 (MIMVS) included 52 patients operated on between 2017-2022 using a minimally invasive video-assisted right-sided mini-thoracotomy. Group 2 (RMV) included 52 patients operated on between 2019-2021 using a robotic-assisted approach. Early and mid-term outcomes were assessed, including maintenance of sinus rhythm. Follow-up was 100% complete at a median follow-up of 2 years.

Results

For the entire propensity matched cohort, the median EuroSCORE II was 3.14 [interquartile range (IQR), 1.93-4.99], the median age was 68 (IQR, 61-74) years, and two thirds of the patients were male. Most (72.1%) underwent mitral valve surgery, and 26.9% had an additional tricuspid procedure. Only four patients underwent mitral valve replacement (3.8%). The majority (87.5%) received a left-sided atrial Maze and 12.5% a bi-atrial Maze. The left atrial appendage was occluded in 72.1% cases. Overall, there were no significant differences between the two propensity matched groups in baseline demographics or intra-operative characteristics. Similarly, there were no significant differences in the post-operative short and mid-term outcomes between the two groups. There were no in-hospital or 30-day deaths. At the mid-term survival was similar between groups, log-rank test P=0.056. Maintenance of sinus rhythm at follow-up was 76%.

Conclusions

Mitral or double valve repair with concomitant cryoablation can be safely performed with either a MIMVS or RMV approach. Both methods demonstrated outstanding early and mid-term outcomes.