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.