Complete Left-Atrial Lesion Set versus Pulmonary Vein Isolation Only in Patients with Paroxysmal AF Undergoing CABG or AVR

Outcomes of surgical ablation for atrial fibrillation in on- versus off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting

OBJECTIVES

A considerable number of patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting surgery suffer from atrial fibrillation and should be treated concomitantly. This manuscript evaluates the impact of on-pump versus off-pump bypass grafting on the applied lesion set and rhythm outcome.

METHODS

Between January 2017 and April 2020, patients who underwent combined bypass grafting and surgical ablation for atrial fibrillation were consecutively enrolled in the German CArdioSurgEry Atrial Fibrillation registry (CASE-AF, 17 centres). Data were prospectively collected. Follow-up was planned after one year.

RESULTS

A total of 224 patients were enrolled. No differences in baseline characteristics were seen between on- and off-pump bypass grafting, especially not in type of atrial fibrillation and left atrial size. In the on-pump group (n = 171, 76%), pulmonary vein isolation and an extended left atrial lesion set were performed more often compared to off-pump bypass grafting (58% vs 26%, 33 vs 9%, respectively, P < 0.001). In off-pump bypass grafting a box isolating the atrial posterior wall was the dominant lesion (72% off-pump vs 42% on-pump, P < 0.001). Left atrial appendage management was comparable in on-pump versus off-pump bypass grafting (94% vs 91%, P = 0.37). Sinus rhythm at follow-up was confirmed in 61% in the on-pump group and in 65% in the off-pump group (P = 0.66). No differences were seen in in-hospital or follow-up complication-rates between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In coronary artery bypass grafting patients undergoing concomitant atrial fibrillation ablation, our data suggests that the technique applied for myocardial revascularization (off-pump vs on-pump) leads to differences in the ablation lesion set, but not in safety and effectiveness.

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.

The outcomes of concomitant catheter ablation in non-mitral valve cardiac surgery-a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature

Background

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common form of cardiac arrythmia, with a key importance in the perioperative setting of cardiac surgery. In recent years, the question as to whether pre-existent AF should be treated concomitantly when undergoing cardiac surgery has been heatedly debated. This systematic review and meta-analysis sought to delineate the outcomes of patients undergoing concomitant AF ablation procedures alongside cardiac surgery.

Methods

The methods for this systematic review and meta-analysis adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement. Four databases were searched, ultimately yielding 22 papers for inclusion, using appropriate search terminology. Meta-analysis using proportions or means, as appropriate, were applied. Kaplan-Meier curves were digitized and aggregated using previously reported and validated techniques.

Results

A total of 9,428 patients (67% male) were identified across the study period as having received non-mitral cardiac surgery and concomitant AF ablation procedures. On actuarial assessment, freedom from AF was found to be 93%, 88%, 85%, 82%, and 79% at 1 through to 5 years, respectively. Freedom from mortality was found to be 94%, 93%, 91%, 90%, and 87% at 1 through to 5 years, respectively.

Conclusions

This review demonstrated excellent freedom from AF out to a long-term follow-up of 5 years. Freedom from mortality was also encouraging. Emerging data are increasingly illustrating that in this patient cohort, concurrent treatment of pre-existent AF with cardiac and/or valvular disease at the point of operation should be the standard of care. Robust data in the form of randomized control trials will hopefully solidify this assertion.

Surgical management of atrial fibrillation in patients undergoing cardiac surgery: a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines and recommendations

AIMS

Surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) has been demonstrated to be a safe procedure conducted concomitantly alongside cardiac surgery. However, there are conflicting guideline recommendations surrounding indications for surgical ablation. We conducted a systematic review of current recommendations on concomitant surgical AF ablation.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We identified publications from MEDLINE and EMBASE between January 2011 and December 2022 and additionally searched Guideline libraries and websites of relevant organizations in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Of 895 studies screened, 4 were rigorously developed (AGREE-II > 50%) and included. All guidelines agreed on the definitions of paroxysmal, persistent, and longstanding AF based on duration and refraction to current treatment modalities. In the Australia-New Zealand (CSANZ) and European (EACTS) guidelines, opportunistic screening for patients >65 years is recommended. The EACTS recommends systematic screening for those aged >75 or at high stroke risk (Class IIa, Level B). However, this was not recommended by American Heart Association or Society of Thoracic Surgeons guidelines. All guidelines identified surgical AF ablation during concomitant cardiac surgery as safe and recommended for consideration by a Heart Team with notable variation in recommendation strength and the specific indication (three guidelines fail to specify any indication for surgery). Only the STS recommended left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) alongside surgical ablation (Class IIa, Level C).

CONCLUSION

Disagreements exist in recommendations for specific indications for concomitant AF ablation and LAAO, with the decision subject to Heart Team assessment. Further evidence is needed to develop recommendations for specific indications for concomitant AF procedures and guidelines need to be made congruent.

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.