Comparative efficacy and safety of biatrial versus left atrial ablation in the surgical treatment of long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation with concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with ischemic heart disease-Reference-Cited by-同舟云学术

Comparative efficacy and safety of biatrial versus left atrial ablation in the surgical treatment of long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation with concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with ischemic heart disease

Published:2021-07-07 Issue:2 Volume:36 Page:107-114
ISSN:2713-265X
Container-title:The Siberian Journal of Clinical and Experimental Medicine
language:
Short-container-title:SMJ

Author:

Kalybekova A. T.¹,Rakhmonov S. S.¹^ORCID,Lukinov V. L.²^ORCID,Chernyavskyi A. M.¹^ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Meshalkin National Medical Research Center

2. Institute of Computational Mathematics and Mathematical Geophysics of the Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences

Abstract

Purpose. To compare the results of biatrial (BA) and left atrial ablation (LAA) performed in patients with long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) with concomitant coronary artery disease (CAD) with indication for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).Material and Methods. A prospective, randomized, single-center, blinded study was conducted on the basis Meshalkin National Medical Research Center in the period from 2016 to 2019. A total of 116 patients with long-standing persistent AF and CAD were randomized into two groups: BA + CABG group (n = 58) and LAA + CABG group (n = 58). Patients of both groups underwent CABG surgery with the chosen atrial ablation technique (LAA or BA).Results: BA technique proved to be more effective in maintaining sinus rhythm (58%) compared with isolated LAA (31%) at 24 months (p = 0.019) after surgical treatment of long-standing persistent AF with concomitant CABG.Conclusion: BA technique was more effective than isolated LAA in the late postoperative period of 24 months.

Publisher

Cardiology Research Institute

Reference23 articles.

1. Hindricks G., Potpara T., Dagres N., Arbelo E., Bax J.J., Blomström- Lundqvist C. et al. 2020 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of atrial fibrillation developed in collaboration with the European Association of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS). Eur. Heart J. 2021;42(5):373–498. DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehaa612.

2. Badhwar V., Rankin J.S., Damiano R.J. Jr., Gillinov A.M., Bakaeen F.G., Edgerton J.R. et al. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons 2017 Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Surgical Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 2017;103(1):329–341. DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2016.10.076.

3. Stulak J.M., Suri R.M., Burkhart H.M., Daly R.C., Dearani J.A., Greason K.L. et al. Surgical ablation for atrial fibrillation for two decades: are the results of new techniques equivalent to the Cox maze III procedure? J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 2014;147(5):1478–1486. DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2013.10.084.

4. Uschner D., Schindler D., Hilgers R., Heussen N. randomizeR: An R Package for the Assessment and Implementation of Randomization in Clinical Trials. Journal of Statistical Software. 2018;85(8):1–22. DOI: 10.18637/jss.v085.i08.

5. Knuuti J., Wijns W., Saraste A., Capodanno D., Barbato E., Funck-Brentano C. et al. 2019 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of chronic coronary syndromes: The Task Force for the diagnosis and management of chronic coronary syndromes of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur. Heart J. 2020;41(3):407–477. DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz425.