Efficacy, safety, and long-term survival of concomitant valve replacement and bipolar radiofrequency ablation in patients aged 70 years and older: a comparative study with propensity score matching from a single-Centre

Comparison of short-term efficacy of two bipolar radiofrequency ablation forceps for rheumatic heart disease concomitant with atrial fibrillation

Background

Currently, the bipolar radiofrequency ablation forceps manufactured by AtriCure are the main instrument for surgical ablation in patients with rheumatic heart disease (RHD) concomitant with atrial fibrillation (AF). The bipolar radiofrequency ablation forceps by Med-Zenith has a greater advantage in price compared with AtriCure. However, few studies have been reported on the comparison of their clinical efficacy. The aim of this study is to compare the short-term clinical efficacy of the two ablation forceps for RHD concomitant with AF.

Methods

Clinical data of 167 patients with RHD concomitant with AF admitted to the Department of Cardiac Major Vascular Surgery, Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College, were retrospectively analyzed, and the restoration efficacy of sinus rhythm (SR) and cardiac function after surgery were compared with two ablation forceps.

Results

The end-systolic diameter of the right atrium and the end-systolic diameter of the left atrium in the patients of both groups at each postoperative time point decreased compared with that of the preoperative period (P < 0.05), and the left ventricular ejection fraction started to improve significantly at 6 months after surgery compared with that of the preoperative period (P < 0.05). There was no difference between the two groups of patients in the comparison of the aforementioned indicators at different points in time (P > 0.05). At 12 months postoperatively, the SR maintenance rate in using the ablation forceps by Med-Zenith (73.3%) was lower than that for AtriCure (86.4%) and the cumulative recurrence rate of AF in using the Med-Zenith ablation forceps was greater than that for AtriCure.

Conclusions

The two bipolar radiofrequency ablation forceps compared in the study are safe and effective in treating patients of RHD concomitant with AF, and the ablation forceps by AtriCure may be more effective in restoring SR in the short term.

Impact of frailty status on clinical and functional outcomes after concomitant valve replacement and bipolar radiofrequency ablation in patients aged 65 years and older

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the prognostic value of frailty in older recipients of concomitant valve replacement (VR) and bipolar radiofrequency ablation (BRFA), we examined whether clinical and functional outcomes differed between frail and non-frail groups of older patients referred for concomitant VR and BRFA.

METHODS

In a single-center retrospective observational cohort study, we compared the clinical and functional outcomes in frail versus non-frail patients. Frailty was assessed using the 5-item Cardiovascular Health Study (CHS) frailty scale. Patients were divided into two groups, frail and non-frail. Functional outcome was assessed using the internationally validated Atrial Fibrillation Effect on QualiTy-of-Life (AFEQT) questionnaire.

RESULTS

We enrolled 185 patients aged ≥ 65 years who underwent concomitant VR and BRFA. About 36.2% (n = 67) of the patients were included in the frail group and the remaining patients (n = 118) in the non-frail group. Follow-up was complete with a median duration of 58 months (interquartile range 44-76 months). Significant differences were observed between the two groups with respect to postoperative pulmonary complications (frail vs. non-frail patients, 50.74% vs. 22.9%, respectively, P < .001) and hospital mortality (10.45% vs. 1.69%, respectively, P = .021). The frail group had a higher adjusted risk for all-cause mortality (adjusted HR 4.06; 95% CI 1.33 to 12.38; P = .014) and all-cause hospitalization (adjusted HR 2.24; 95% CI 1.12 to 4.50; P = .023). Frailty was associated with lower overall AFEQT scores at baseline (Estimate, - 0.400; 95% CI - 0.532 to - 0.267; P < .001). Compared to the non-frail group, the frail group continued to have lower overall AFEQT scores with no significant improvement in follow-up at 1 year and 2 years after concomitant VR and BRFA.

CONCLUSION

Frail patients had lower baseline AFEQT scores and were more likely to have adverse outcomes from postoperative pulmonary complications, and frailty was also an independent risk factor for long-term all-cause mortality and all-cause rehospitalization. Further studies are needed to assess the impact of frailty.

[Safety and Medium- and Long-Term Efficacy of Treating Atrial Fibrillation with Surgical Radiofrequency Ablation during Concomitant Mitral Valve Surgery]

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the safety and medium- and long-term efficacy of surgical radiofrequency ablation to treat atrial fibrillation during concomitant mitral valve surgery.

METHODS

From January 2014 to December 2018, 280 patients with mitral valve disease and the comorbidity of preoperative atrial fibrillation were recruited for the study. Among them, 130 patients received only mitral valve surgery (non-ablation group), and 150 patients were underwent surgical radiofrequency ablation for the atrial fibrillation during concomitant mitral valve surgery (ablation group). Among the 150 patients of the ablation group, 80 had biatrial ablation, and 70 had left atrial ablation. Under general anesthesia, median sternotomy was done on all patients and cardiopulmonary bypass was established through the ascending aorta and superior and inferior venae cavae. After aortic occlusion, patients in the ablation group underwent the ablation procedure with the Atricure® bipolar ablation device, using the Cox Maze Ⅲ procedure as a reference. In addition, the left atrial appendage was removed and electrocautery of the ligament of Marshall and Waterston's groove were performed in all Cox Maze cases. Following ablation, mitral valve replacement or repair was performed. All patients were given 200 mg oral amiodarone on the first day after surgery, for three times/d×7 d, which was followed by twice/d×7 d, and then oral amiodarone 200 mg/d was maintained till the end of 3 months after surgery (ablation group) or 12 months after surgery (non-ablation group). Patients were followed up at the intervals of 3 months, 6 months, 12 months, 2 years, 3 years, and 5 years after discharge. The follow-up service included standard 12-lead chest electrocardiogram (ECG) and 24-h dynamic ECG. The primary end point of the study was the time point of postoperative atrial fibrillation and the secondary endpoints were major cardiovascular events, death, and readmission due to heart failure.

RESULTS

The surgeries were successfully performed in all subjects of the study. A total of 30 patients were lost to follow-up within 5 years after operation (10.7% losses to follow-up), including 11 patients in the ablation group and 19 patients in the non-ablation group. The proportion of patients who did not have atrial fibrillation in the ablation group and the non-ablation group at 6 months, 12 months, 2 years, 3 years and 5 years after surgery was 83.3% and 27.7%, 72.7% and 20.8%, 66.0% and 15.4% 61.3% and 13.1%, and 43.3% and 10.8%, respectively, with the data from the two groups showing statistically significant difference ( P<0.001). The proportion of patients who did not have atrial fibrillation in the biatrial ablation and the left atrial ablation group at 6 months, 12 months, 2 years, 3 years and 5 years after surgery was 87.3% and 87.5%, 92.4% and 82.8%, 90.5% and 85.7%, 94.8% and 88.1%, and 75.5% and 69.4%%, respectively, with the data from the two groups showing no statistically significant difference ( P>0.05). However, the cumulative incidence of atrial fibrillation in the two groups showed statistically significant difference ( P<0.001). There were no deaths within 30 days after operation in either group. There was no significant difference in cerebrovascular accident, readmission for heart failure, pulmonary infection and mediastinal infection between the two groups within one year after operation ( P>0.05). However, the proportion of patients who had permanent pacemaker installed due to Ⅲ-degree atrioventricular block in the ablation group was higher than that in the non-ablation group ( P<0.05). The proportion of patients who required re-drainage due to delayed pericardial effusion in the ablation group was higher than that in the non-ablation group ( P<0.05).

CONCLUSION

In the group of patients who had modified Cox Maze procedure with bipolar ablation device to treat atrial fibrillation during concomitant mitral valve surgery, the maintenance rate of sinus rhythm after cardioversion was significantly higher than that in the non-ablation group. The surgery showed better safety and significantly better medium- and long-term outcomes. Left atrial ablation and biatrial ablation were both considered safe and effective surgical treatment for atrial fibrillation. Compared with the left atrial ablation group, the biatrial ablation group achieved better effects in restoring and maintaining sinus rhythm without an increase the incidence of perioperative complications.