Safety and efficacy of biatrial vs left atrial surgical ablation during concomitant cardiac surgery: A meta-analysis of clinical studies with a focus on the causes of pacemaker implantation.

INTRODUCTION: The latest STS guidelines recommend concomitant atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation not only during mitral surgery (Class IA) but also during other-than-mitral cardiac surgery procedures (Class IB) in patients with preoperative AF. Conventional Cox-Maze III/IV procedures are performed on both atria (BA), but several studies reported excellent results with left atrial only (LA) ablations: the scope of this study is to compare the safety and efficacy of BA vs LA approach. METHODS AND RESULTS: Pubmed, Scopus, and WOS were searched from inception to November 2018: 28 studies including 7065 patients and comparing the performance of BA vs LA approaches were identified: of these, 16 (57.1%) enrolled exclusively patients with non-paroxysmal AF forms, 10 (35.7%) focused on mitral surgery as main procedure, and 16 (57.1%) regarded patients undergone Cox-Maze with radiofrequency. The 6- and 12-months prevalence of sinus rhythm were higher in the BA group (OR, 1.37, CI, 1.09-1.73, P = .008 and OR, 1.37, CI, 0.99-1.88, P = .05 respectively). Permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation (OR, 1.85, CI, 1.38-2.49, P < .0001) and reopening for bleeding (OR, 1.70, CI, 1.05-2.75, P = .03) were higher in the BA group. Among patients undergone PPM implantation, BA group had a significantly higher risk of sinoatrial node dysfunction (OR, 3.01, CI, 1.49-6.07, P = .002). CONCLUSIONS: Concomitant BA ablation appears superior to LA ablation in terms of efficacy but is associated with a higher risk of bleeding and of PPM implantation, more frequently due to sinoatrial node dysfunction. LA approach should be preferable in patients with a higher risk of bleeding or with perioperative risk factors for PPM implantation.

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies Evaluating Point-of-Care Tests of Coagulopathy in Cardiac Surgery.

Treatment guidelines recommend the routine use of point-of-care diagnostic tests for coagulopathy in the management of cardiac surgery patients at risk of severe bleeding despite uncertainty as to their diagnostic accuracy. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of viscoelastometry, platelet function tests, and modified thromboelastography (TEG) tests, for coagulopathy in cardiac surgery patients. The reference standard included resternotomy for bleeding, transfusion of non-red cell components, or massive transfusion. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Clinical Trials.gov, from inception to June 2019. Study quality was assessed using QUADAS-2. Bivariate models were used to estimate summary sensitivity and specificity with (95% confidence intervals). All 29 studies (7440 participants) included in the data synthesis evaluated the tests as predictors of bleeding. No study evaluated their role in the management of bleeding. None was at low risk of bias. Four were judged as low concern regarding applicability. Pooled estimates of diagnostic accuracy were; Viscoelastic tests, 12 studies, sensitivity 0.61 (0.44, 0.76), specificity 0.83 (0.70, 0.91) with significant heterogeneity. Platelet function tests, 12 studies, sensitivity 0.63 (0.53, 0.72), specificity 0.75 (0.64, 0.84) with significant heterogeneity. TEG modification tests, 3 studies, sensitivity 0.80 (0.67, 0.89), specificity 0.76 (0.69, 0.82) with no evidence of heterogeneity. Studies reporting the highest values for sensitivity and specificity had important methodological limitations. In conclusion, we did not demonstrate predictive accuracy for commonly used point-of-care devices for coagulopathic bleeding in cardiac surgery. However, the certainty of the evidence was low.