Bi-atrial or left atrial ablation of atrial fibrillation during concomitant cardiac surgery: A Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

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.

Three Ablation Techniques for Atrial Fibrillation during Concomitant Cardiac Surgery: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation is a frequent procedure used in concomitant cardiac surgery. However, uncertainty still exists concerning the optimal extent of lesion sets. Hence, the objective of this study was to assess the results of various ablation techniques, aiming to offer a reference for clinical decision making. This review is listed in the prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) under ID CRD42023412785. A comprehensive search was conducted across eight databases (Scopus, Google Scholar, EBSCOHost, PubMed, Medline, Wiley, ProQuest, and Embase) up to 18 April 2023. Studies were critically appraised using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 for randomized control trials (RCTs) and the Newcastle Ottawa Scale adapted by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) for cohort studies. Forest plots of pooled effect estimates and surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) were used for the analysis. Our analysis included 39 studies and a total of 7207 patients. Both bi-atrial ablation (BAA) and left atrial ablation (LAA) showed similar efficacy in restoring sinus rhythm (SR; BAA (77.9%) > LAA (76.2%) > pulmonary vein isolation (PVI; 66.5%); LAA: OR = 1.08 (CI 0.94-1.23); PVI: OR = 1.36 (CI 1.08-1.70)). However, BAA had higher pacemaker implantation (LAA: OR = 0.51 (CI 0.37-0.71); PVI: OR = 0.52 (CI 0.31-0.86)) and reoperation rates (LAA: OR = 0.71 (CI 0.28-1.45); PVI: OR = 0.31 (CI 0.1-0.64)). PVI had the lowest efficacy in restoring SR and a similar complication rate to LAA, but had the shortest procedure time (Cross-clamp (Xc): PVI (93.38) > LAA (37.36) > BAA (13.89)); Cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB): PVI (93.93) > LAA (56.04) > BAA (0.03)). We suggest that LAA is the best surgical technique for AF ablation due to its comparable effectiveness in restoring SR, its lower rate of pacemaker requirement, and its lower reoperation rate compared to BAA. Furthermore, LAA ranks as the second-fastest procedure after PVI, with a similar CPB time.