Although the Cox-Maze III procedure is effective for treating permanent atrial fibrillation (AF), its high complexity limits its use. The Saline-Irrigated Cooled-tip Radiofrequency Ablation (SICTRA) System is an alternative source of energy used to ablate AF. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the SICTRA for the treatment of permanent AF in patients with rheumatic mitral valve (MV) disease.
Between February 2002 and April 2003, 70 patients with permanent AF and rheumatic MV disease were randomly assigned to undergo a modified Maze III procedure using SICTRA associated with MV surgery (group A) or MV surgery alone (group B). Groups A and B were similar in terms of baseline characteristics. The in-hospital mortality rate was 2.3% (1 death) in group A versus 0% (no deaths) in group B (P>0.99). The additional time required for the left-sided radiofrequency ablation in group A was 14.2+/-5.1 minutes and for right-sided ablation was 12.3+/-4.2 minutes. The mean postoperative follow-up periods were 13.8+/-3.4 and 11.5+/-7.3 months, respectively, in groups A and B. The overall mid-term survival rate was 95.1% in group A and 92.8% in group B (P>0.99). The cumulative rates of sinus rhythm were 79.4% in group A and 26.9% in group B (P=0.001). Doppler echocardiography documented biatrial transport function in 90.3% of group A patients in sinus rhythm.
The SICTRA is effective for treating permanent AF associated with rheumatic MV disease.
"Only a few randomized studies have been published to date and they suffered from relatively
small sample sizes, involving various groupings of patients and with inconsistent published
data relative to mid- and long-term results.8–16 These studies
enrolled only patients scheduled for mitral valve surgery—thus, the efficacy of
surgical ablation in patients undergoing other types of surgery, e.g. "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: AimsSurgical ablation procedure can restore sinus rhythm (SR) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) undergoing cardiac surgery. However, it is not known whether it has any impact on long-term clinical outcomes.Methods and resultsThis multicentre study randomized 224 patients with AF scheduled for valve and/or coronary surgery: group A (left atrial surgical ablation, n = 117) vs. group B (no ablation, n = 107). The primary efficacy outcome was the SR presence (without any AF episode) during a 24 h electrocardiogram (ECG) after 1 year. The primary safety outcome was the combined endpoint of death/myocardial infarction/stroke/renal failure at 30 days. A Holter-ECG after 1 year revealed SR in 60.2% of group A patients vs. 35.5% in group B (P = 0.002). The combined safety endpoint at 30 days occurred in 10.3% (group A) vs. 14.7% (group B, P = 0.411). All-cause 1-year mortality was 16.2% (A) vs. 17.4% (B, P = 0.800). Stroke occurred in 2.7% (A) vs. 4.3% (B) patients (P = 0.319). No difference (A vs. B) in SR was found among patients with paroxysmal (61.9 vs. 58.3%) or persistent (72 vs. 50%) AF, but ablation significantly increased SR prevalence in patients with longstanding persistent AF (53.2 vs. 13.9%, P < 0.001).Conclusion
Surgical ablation improves the likelihood of SR presence post-operatively without increasing peri-operative complications. However, the higher prevalence of SR did not translate to improved clinical outcomes at 1 year. Further follow-ups (e.g. 5-year) are warranted to show any potential clinical benefit which might occur later.
European Heart Journal 08/2012; 33(21). DOI:10.1093/eurheartj/ehs290 · 15.20 Impact Factor
"Interestingly, the average efficacy of 50% correlates with the left atrial catheter ablation in patients with heart failure and chronic AF . By comparison, Cox-Maze III RFA has been evaluated in one randomized study involving 70 patients with permanent AF . The efficacy of this extensive ablation lesion set that yields a 79% freedom from arrhythmias is in accord with the critical mass hypothesis . "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Randomized studies evaluating left atrial radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation undergoing mitral valve surgery are scarce and monocentric.
To evaluate the efficacy of left atrial RFA concomitant with mitral valve surgery to restore and maintain sinus rhythm.
The SAFIR is a multicentre, double-blinded, centrally randomized study involving four university hospitals. Between December 2002 and September 2005, 43 patients with mitral valve disease and long-standing, persistent atrial fibrillation (duration>6 months) were included. We compared valvular surgery alone (n=22) or with left atrial RFA (n=21). The main endpoint was sinus rhythm at 12 months without recurrence of arrhythmia during follow-up. Secondary endpoints were surgical adverse events, atrial fibrillation relapses, stroke and echocardiographic measurements after three and 12 months' follow-up. Analyses of the efficacy criteria were performed on an intention-to-treat basis.
The primary endpoint occurred significantly more often in the RFA group than in the control group (respectively, 12/21 patients [57%] vs 1/22 patients [4%]; p=0.004). There were more patients with sinus rhythm in the RFA group than in the control group at discharge (72.7% vs 4.8%; p<0.005), 3-month follow-up (85.7% vs 23.8%; p<0.01) and 12-month follow-up (95.2% vs 33.3%; p<0.005). The patients in the RFA group had similar rates of postoperative complications and stroke during follow-up as those in the control group.
This multicentre study suggests that left atrial RFA is effective and safe in patients with chronic atrial fibrillation and mitral valve disease.
Ross J. Hunter, Victoria Baker, Malcolm C. Finlay, Edward R. Duncan, MATTHEW J. LOVELL, MUZAHIR H. TAYEBJEE, WAQAS ULLAH, M. SHOAIB SIDDIQUI, AILSA MCLEAN, LAURA RICHMOND, CLAIRE KIRKBY, MATTHEW R GINKS, MEHUL DHINOJA, SIMON SPORTON, MARK J. EARLEY, RICHARD J. SCHILLING
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.