Statewide data on surgical ablation for atrial fibrillation: The data provide a path forward.

OBJECTIVE: Atrial fibrillation (AF), if left untreated, is associated with increased intermediate and long-term morbidity/mortality. Surgical treatment for AF is lacking standardization in patient selection and lesion set, despite clear support from multi-society guidelines. The aim of this study was to analyze a statewide cardiac surgery registry to establish whether or not there is an association between center volume and type of index procedure with performance of surgical ablation (SA) for AF, the lesion set chosen, and ablation technology used. METHODS: Adult, first-time, nonemergency patients with preoperative AF between 2014 and 2022 excluding standalone SA procedures from a statewide registry of Society of Thoracic Surgeons data were included (N = 4320). AF treatment variability by hospital volume (ordered from smallest to largest) and surgery type were examined with χ2 analyses. Hospital-level Spearman correlations compared hospital volume with proportion of AF patients treated with SA. RESULTS: Overall, 37% of patients with AF were ablated at the time of surgery (63% of mitral procedures, 26% of non-mitrals) and 15% had left atrial appendage management only. There was a significant temporal trend of increasing performance of SA for AF over time (Cochran-Armitage = 27.8; P < .001). Hospital cardiac surgery volume did not correlate with the proportion of AF patients treated with SA (rs = 0.19; P = .603) with a rate of SA below the state average for academic centers. Of cases with SA (n = 1582), only 43% had a biatrial lesion set. Procedures that involved mitral surgery were more likely to include a biatrial lesion set (χ2 = 392.3; P < .001) for both paroxysmal and persistent AF. Similarly, ablation technology use was variable by type of concomitant operation (χ2 = 219.0; P < .001) such that radiofrequency energy was more likely to be used in non-mitral procedures. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate an increase in adoption of SA for AF over time. No association between greater hospital volume or academic status and performance of SA for AF was established. Similar to national data, the type of index procedure remains the most consistent factor in the decision to perform SA with a disconnect between AF pathophysiology and decision making on the type of SA performed. This analysis demonstrates a gap between evidence-based guidelines and real-world practice, highlighting an opportunity to confer the benefits of concomitant SA to more patients.

The state of surgical ablation for atrial fibrillation in patients with mitral valve disease.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Atrial fibrillation has been shown to be associated with less favorable short and long-term outcomes in patients having mitral valve surgery. Despite the growing evidence related to the potential benefits of surgical ablation for atrial fibrillation at the time of the mitral valve operation, there is a significant variability among surgeons in their approaches to atrial fibrillation. The purpose of this review is to discuss the current state of surgical ablation for atrial fibrillation as reported in the literature, as well as to discuss the significance of atrial fibrillation and the different surgical approaches to treat patients with mitral valve disease who may also concurrently suffer from tricuspid valve disease and atrial fibrillation. RECENT FINDINGS: Increased mortality and morbidity are expected when atrial fibrillation is left untreated in patients undergoing mitral valve surgery. Modern surgical ablations resulted in a shift from the cut and sew maze procedure to the vast majority of cases being performed using different ablation technologies. The use of ablation technology simplifies the procedure. The expectation is that the vast majority of patients with atrial fibrillation will be ablated at the time of their mitral valve surgery. SUMMARY: Patients who have mitral valve with or without tricuspid valve disease with a significant history of atrial fibrillation may benefit from surgical ablation to eliminate atrial fibrillation. No increased perioperative morbidity or mortality has been documented with an improved long-term survival and very low incidence of thromboembolic events.

The long-term safety and efficacy of concomitant Cox maze procedures for atrial fibrillation in patients without mitral valve disease.

OBJECTIVE: Newly published guidelines made the highest level recommendation for surgical treatment for atrial fibrillation. However, the number of patients without a mitral valve procedure with atrial fibrillation who are treated with concomitant surgical ablation is still low (15%-25%), because surgeons are reluctant to perform procedures in patients who would not otherwise require left atriotomy. The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of concomitant Cox maze with and without mitral valve procedures. METHODS: Patients who underwent concomitant Cox maze procedures were prospectively followed since September 2005. Of the 711 patients, 238 did not receive mitral valve surgery. Propensity score matching was conducted to balance preoperative characteristics between patients with and without mitral valve procedures (164/group after matching). RESULTS: Before matching, patients in the mitral valve group were younger (65 vs 67 years, P = .047) and had higher euroSCORE II (European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation; 3.2% vs 2.6%, P = .002), larger mean left atrial size (5.3 vs 4.8 cm, P < .001), and shorter median atrial fibrillation duration (19 vs 25 months, P = .064). Early outcomes were similar for the matched groups. Cumulative 5-year freedom from stroke did not differ between matched mitral valve and non-mitral valve groups (96.1% vs 96.6%, P = .667). At each time point, the proportion in sinus rhythm off antiarrhythmic medications was similar for the matched groups, including 5 years after surgery (68% vs 63%, P = .492). CONCLUSIONS: The Cox maze procedure is safe and effective with comparable outcomes when performed concomitant to mitral valve or non-mitral valve surgery. Surgeons should base the decision to perform surgical ablation procedures on atrial fibrillation pathophysiology and the benefit to patients, not on the type of concomitant procedure.

Strict versus liberal target range for perioperative glucose in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting: a prospective randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to test the hypothesis that a liberal blood glucose strategy (121-180 mg/dL) is not inferior to a strict blood glucose strategy (90-120 mg/dL) for outcomes in patients after first-time isolated coronary artery bypass grafting and is superior for glucose control and target blood glucose management. METHODS: A total of 189 patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting were investigated in this prospective randomized study to compare 2 glucose control strategies on patient perioperative outcomes. Three methods of analyses (intention to treat, completer, and per protocol) were conducted. Observed power was robust (>80%) for significant results. RESULTS: The groups were similar on preoperative hemoglobin A(1c) and number of diabetic patients. The liberal group was found to be noninferior to the strict group for perioperative complications and superior on glucose control and target range management. The liberal group had significantly fewer patients with hypoglycemic events (<60 mg/dL; P < .001), but severe hypoglycemic events (<40 mg/dL) were rare and no group differences were found (P = .23). These results were found with all 3 methods of analysis except for blood glucose variability, maximum blood glucose, and perioperative atrial fibrillation. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that maintenance of blood glucose in a liberal range after coronary artery bypass grafting led to similar outcomes compared with a strict target range and was superior in glucose control and target range management. On the basis of the results of this study, a target blood glucose range of 121 to 180 mg/dL is recommended for patients after coronary artery bypass grafting as advocated by the Society of Thoracic Surgeons.