Biatrial ablation vs. Pulmonary vein isolation in atrial fibrillation patients undergoing cardiac surgery: a retrospective study.

OBJECTIVES: Surgical ablation is an established treatment for patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing cardiac surgery. This study aimed to compare postoperative rhythm outcomes and pacemaker implantation rates after biatrial ablation or pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) concomitantly with other cardiac surgery. Design: In a retrospective study, we included patients who underwent biatrial ablation or PVI. Postoperative rhythm status was assessed by Holter monitoring. All data on outcomes and patient characteristics were collected retrospectively. Results: In total 109 patients had a biatrial procedure whereas 337 had PVI performed. In patients with persistent/long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation, freedom from atrial fibrillation was more common after biatrial ablation than after PVI (63% and 45%, respectively; p = .039). Postoperative permanent pacemaker implantation was more common after biatrial ablation (12% and 6%, respectively; p = .039), compared to PVI. Age < 65 years (OR:2.0, 95% CI:1.1-3.6) was a predictor of freedom from atrial fibrillation in the biatrial group, whereas absence of left atrial dilatation (OR:1.8, 95% CI:1.1-3.2) and HAS-BLED score < 2 (OR:1.9, 95% CI:1.0-3.8) were significant predictors of freedom from atrial fibrillation in the PVI group. Conclusions: In patients with persistent/long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation, biatrial ablation is more effective than PVI in terms of obtaining freedom from postoperative atrial fibrillation. Although our groups were heterogenic in terms of concomitant surgery, our study also indicates that the risk of needing a permanent pacemaker is higher after biatrial ablation, compared to PVI. Therefore, our study highlights that the decision between biatrial ablation or PVI should be performed on an individual basis.

Discontinuation of anticoagulants after successful surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: The decision of whether to continue oral anticoagulation therapy (OAT) after successful surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation is challenging, and current guidelines provide no specific recommendations on whether or not it is safe to terminate OAT. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess long-term outcomes in patients who either did or did not, receive OAT after surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation. METHODS: In a prospective follow-up study, patients were included if surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation concomitantly with other cardiac surgery was done, between 2004 and 2018 at Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark. After 12 months, OAT was discontinued if: (a) sinus rhythm was documented by electrocardiogram, (b) atrial fibrillation was absent on 5-day Holter monitoring, (c) CHADS2 score ≤2, and (d) no other indications for OAT were present. Follow-up was ended in April 2019. RESULTS: A total of 560 patients underwent surgical ablation of which 436 patients reached the baseline at 12 months; 286 patients received OAT, and 150 had OAT discontinued. Survival analysis revealed no differences between the two groups (P = .723). Mean survival time in the group receiving OAT was 5.3 ± 3.3 years, compared to 5.1 ± 3.0 years in the group where OAT was discontinued (P = .784). There was no difference in major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events between the two groups (P = .846). CONCLUSION: Discontinuation of OAT is safe in patients with a CHADS2 score ≤2 following successful surgical ablation and left atrial appendage occlusion. This conclusion needs to be confirmed in randomized trials.