Left atrial concomitant surgical ablation for treatment of atrial fibrillation in cardiac surgery: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Abstract

Introduction

Surgical ablation is a generally established treatment for patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing concomitant cardiac surgery. Left atrial (LA) lesion set for ablation is a simplified procedure suggested to reduce the surgery time and morbidity after procedure. The present meta-analysis aims to explore the outcomes of left atrial lesion set versus no ablative treatment in patients with AF undergoing cardiac surgery.

Methods

A literature research was performed in six database from their inception to July 2017, identifying all relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing left atrial lesion set versus no ablative treatment in AF patient undergoing cardiac surgery. Data were extracted and analyzed according to predefined clinical endpoints.

Results

Eleven relevant RCTs were included for analysis in the present study. The prevalence of sinus rhythm in ablation group was significantly higher at discharge, 6-month and 1-year follow-up period. The morbidity including 30 day mortality, late all-cause mortality, reoperation for bleeding, permanent pacemaker implantation and neurological events were of no significant difference between two groups.

Conclusions

The result of our meta-analysis demonstrates that left atrial lesion set is an effective and safe surgical ablation strategy for AF patients undergoing concomitant cardiac surgery.

About the Authors:

Xinxin Wang

Roles Writing – original draft

Affiliation: Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Affiliated Taizhou Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Taizhou, China

ORCID logo http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4515-5204

Chunguo Wang

Roles Data curation

Affiliation: Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Affiliated Taizhou Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Taizhou, China

Minhua Ye

Roles Writing – review & editing

Affiliation: Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Affiliated Taizhou Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Taizhou, China

Jiang Lin

Roles Methodology

Affiliation: Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Affiliated Taizhou Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Taizhou, China

Jiang Jin

Roles Methodology

Affiliation: Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Affiliated Taizhou Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Taizhou, China

Quanteng Hu

Roles Writing – original draft

Affiliation: Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Affiliated Taizhou Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Taizhou, China

Chengchu Zhu

Roles Funding acquisition

Affiliation: Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Affiliated Taizhou Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Taizhou, China

Baofu Chen

Roles Writing – review & editing

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliation: Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Affiliated Taizhou Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Taizhou, China

Introduction

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common cardiac arrhythmia in clinical practice and associated with reduced survival and increased risk of stroke, with a prevalence of 30 to 50% in patients undergoing mitral valve surgery[1–6]. The pathology of AF is supposed to be abnormal re-entry circuits existing in atrial walls. The first surgical procedure called Cox-Maze III procedure was introduced by Dr James L Cox in 1992[7]. The Cox-Maze III operation is a complex procedure which involves a series of endocardial incisions in both atria. The aim of Cox-Maze procedure is to interrupt the multiple, disorganized re-entrant circuits[8]. This procedure is usually performed with other cardiac surgery including mitral valve repair/replacement or coronary artery bypass graft. Recent researches renewed the pathophysiological mechanisms underlying AF and found the pulmonary veins and left atrium were the main “triggers” of AF[9]. This discovery lead to the innovation of the traditional Cox-Maze III procedure and limited the incisions to left atrium even just pulmonary veins instead of both atria. On the other hand, the advent of new energy sources for maze operation including radiofrequency, cryo-energy and microwaves also reduced the complex of the procedure. Previous meta-analysis has demonstrated that surgical ablation is an effective and safe procedure for AF patients undergoing cardiac surgery or mitral valve surgery only[10, 11]. However, the direct evidence respecting to outcomes of left atrial surgical ablation for AF patients were not established. In order to make a supplement to this field, the present meta-analysis aims to summarize the available randomized evidence about the clinical outcomes of left atrial surgical ablation in patients undergoing concomitant surgery.

Materials and methods

Literature search strategy

Electronic searches were performed using PubMed, Ovid Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CCTR), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), Database of Abstracts of Review of Effectiveness (DARE) and ACP Journal Club from their date of inception to July 2017. To achieve the maximum sensitivity of the search strategy, we combined the terms: ‘atrial fibrillation’ AND ‘ablation’ AND ‘randomized controlled trial’ as either key words or medical subject headings (MeSH) terms. The reference lists of all retrieved articles were checked for further identification of extra relevant studies assessed using the inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Selection criteria

Inclusion criteria for the present systematic review and meta-analysis were as follows:

1. Randomized controlled trial.

2. Patients underwent any cardiac surgery concomitantly with surgical ablative treatment of atrial fibrillation.

3. All patients were diagnosed with permanent or persistent atrial fibrillation.

4. Surgery ablation techniques included the left atrial surgical ablation.

5. A direct comparison between cardiac surgery with or without left atrial surgical ablation.

6. The endpoints of study were sinus rhythm or AF-free survival.

Exclusion criteria for the present systematic review and meta-analysis were as follows:

1. Not a randomized controlled trial.

2. Catheter ablation without concomitant cardiac surgery.

3. Comparison between other ablation techniques or different ablation energy, such as Cox-maze, modified Cox-maze, biatrial surgical ablation, cut and sew, cryoablation, radiofrequency, mircrowave, bipolar and unipolar.

4. Patients with paroxysmal AF were included.

5. Duplicate data from the same study.

Data extraction and quality assessment

All data were extracted from article texts, tables and figures. Two investigators independently reviewed every retrieved article (XW and QH). A disagreement was solved by discussion and consensus with a third investigator (CW) if necessary. The risk of bias was assessed according to the Cochrane Collaboration for risk of bias, by two reviewers (JL and JJ). The final results were reviewed by senior investigators (MY and BC).

Statistical analysis

Clinical outcomes were assessed with a standard meta-analysis technique. The hazard ratio (HR) and odds ratio (OR) was used as a summary statistic. χ2 tests were used to examine heterogeneity between trials. I2 statistic was used to estimate the heterogeneity and I2>50% was considered as substantial heterogeneity. In the present meta-analysis, the results were analyzed with the random-effects model considering the possible clinical diversity and methodological variation between studies. HR and the corresponding 95% CI were used for freedom from atrial fibrillation indirectly calculated using the method of Tierney and colleagues[12] in each study. If there was a substantial heterogeneity, the possible reasons for this were explored qualitatively. Meta-regression was used to investigate the effects of covariates, especially variations in patient characteristics. Publication bias of the major outcomes of this meta-analysis was detected by Egger’s regression test. All P values were two-sided. All statistical analyses were conducted with Review Manager version 5.3 (The Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark) and Stata (version 12.0; StataCorp, College Station, TX).

Results

Literature search

A total of 1430 references were identified through six electronic database searches. Manual search of reference lists yielded two extra studies. After exclusion of duplicate or irrelevant references, 696 potentially relevant articles were retrieved. After detailed evaluation of these articles, 32 studies remained for assessment. After applying the selection criteria, 11 RCTs were selected for analysis (Fig 1). In these eleven studies, 666 patients underwent procedures that involved cardiac surgery with left atrial ablation (CS + LA group; n = 333) or without surgical ablation (CS group; n = 333). The study characteristics of these trials are summarized in Table 1.

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Fig 1. Search strategy of meta-analysis for left atrial surgical ablation with cardiac surgery (CS + LA) versus cardiac surgery (CS) alone in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0191354.g001

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Table 1. Summary of RCTs comparing CS+LA versus CS surgical treatment in patients with AF/.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0191354.t001

Quality assessment

These eleven studies were all RCTs[13–23]. One study had more than 50 patients[13], while the remaining ten studies had less than 50 patients (range, 10–49 patients). Five studies used cut-and-sew[13, 14, 18, 19, 23], two studies used radiofrequency ablation[20, 21], two studies used cryoablation[15, 22] and two studies used microwave[16, 17]. All studies reported patients undergoing left atrial ablation and left appendage amputation. A little variant existed among studies with regarding to ablation or cut-and-sew lines on the left atrial wall. All studies except one[17] reported a line connecting pulmonary veins and mitral valve annulus. Eight studies made a line connecting pulmonary veins and appendage amputation site[13–18, 21, 22]. Six studies isolated the pulmonary veins in one circle[14–17, 19, 23]. Four studies isolated the left and right pulmonary veins in pair[13, 18, 21, 22]. One study isolated the pulmonary veins in pair or one by one[20]. The five studies which isolated the pulmonary veins in pair or one by one made a connection line between two pairs. Only two studies reported performing cryoablation or electrocauterization to coronary sinus[15, 23]. The lesion set description of included studies were summarized in Table 2. All studies focused on permanent or persistent AF. SR was the primary endpoint in nine studies, while AF-free survival was the primary endpoint in two studies. The data of SR at discharge was reported in 8 of 11 studies. Preoperative data for co-variates, which were available for both groups, were variable between the studies in Table 3. Out of the 8 studies, age and gender were reported in 8, LVEF in 7, LAD in 8, AF duration in 7, NYHA III/IV in 2, hypertension in 4, stroke and diabetes in 3. As such, the NYHA, stroke and diabetes were excluded from meta-regression analysis for sinus rhythm at discharge. The data of freedom from atrial fibrillation were extracted indirectly from 7 of 11 studies. Out of the 7 studies, age, gender, LVEF and LAD were reported in 7, AF duration in 6, NYHA III/IV, hypertension, stroke and diabetes in 3. As such, the NYHA, stroke and diabetes were excluded from meta-regression analysis for freedom from atrial fibrillation at 1 year follow up. 30-day mortality was reported by all eleven studies. The 11 RCTs were also assessed qualitatively using tools recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration for the risk of bias. A graph and summary of selection bias, performance bias, detection bias, attrition bias, reporting bias and other bias identified in each individual RCT is shown in Fig 2.

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Fig 2.

(A) Methodological quality graph and (B) Methodological quality summary for the risk of bias from randomized controlled trials comparing CS+LA versus CS alone for treatment of AF. Blank boxes represent unclear risk of bias, due to inadequate methodological descriptions from the original publication.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0191354.g002

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Table 2. Lesion set description of included studies.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0191354.t002

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Table 3. Summary of baseline patient characteristics and risk factors in studies comparing CS+LA with CS alone in surgical treatment for atrial fibrillation.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0191354.t003

Baseline patient and operational characteristics

The baseline patient and operational characteristics are summarized in Table 3. Similar baseline characteristics were observed in both groups. Males accounted for 24–83% of patients undergoing CS + LA and 41–83% undergoing CS alone (weighted mean: 52% vs. 57%; P > 0.05). The average age ranged between 35–75 years for both CS + LA and CS groups (weighted mean: 59 vs. 59; P = 0.71) for CS + LA and CS groups respectively. There were also no differences between CS+LA and CS groups in terms of LVEF (P = 0.33), LA diameter (LAD) (P = 0.26), NYHA III/IV (P = 0.24), prior stroke (P = 0.09) and diabetes (P = 0.99). CBP and aortic cross clamp time was significantly longer when cardiac surgery was performed concomitantly with left atrial surgical ablation (P <0.01). Five studies reported valvular surgery with surgical ablation and one study reported CABG with surgical ablation. Three studies reported mixed valvular and CABG surgery. Two studies didn’t give specific information about surgery type. The operational characteristics are summarized in Table 4.

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Table 4. Summary of perioperative characteristics and complications.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0191354.t004

Assessment of efficacy

Prevalence of sinus rhythm and freedom from atrial fibrillation.

The number of patients in SR at discharge was significantly higher in the CS + LA group compared to the CS group (65.8% vs. 30.0%; OR, 8.04; 95% CI, 3.74–17.28; P<0.00001; I2 = 54%). The CS + LA group also had a significantly higher proportion of patients in SR compared to CS group at 6-month (55.8% vs. 24.4%; OR, 5.00; 95% CI, 3.18–7.88; P<0.00001; I2 = 0%) and 1-year (55.1% vs. 20.8%; OR, 7.40; 95% CI, 3.97–13.79; P<0.00001; I2 = 16%) follow-up periods. The results are summarized in Fig 3. Meta-regression models found no significant effects exerted by patient age (P = 0.166), gender (P = 0.939), LVEF (P = 0.226), AF duration (P = 0.138), hypertension (P = 0.252), or LAD (P = 0.145) upon sinus rhythm at discharge in Fig 4. Subgroup analysis of different ablation energy including cut and sew radiofrequency ablation, microwave and cryoablation demonstrated no significant difference affecting SR at discharge. Subgroup analysis according to the included number of patients or concomitant cardiac surgery type didn’t make a difference regarding SR at discharge. The results are summarized in Figs 5–7. Left atrial surgical ablation showed a good benefit in terms of freedom from atrial fibrillation at 1-year follow up (Hazard Ratio, 0.41, 95% CI, 0.37–0.46; P<0.00001; I2 = 92%; Fig 8). Meta-regression models found no significant effects exerted by patient age (P = 0.07), gender (P = 0.08), LVEF (P = 0.42), AF duration (P = 0.14), or LAD (P = 0.31) upon freedom form atrial fibrillation at 1 year follow up in Fig 9.

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Fig 3. Forest plot of sinus rhythm prevalence at discharge, 6-month, and 1 year follow-up, showing summary of ORs with 95% confidence intervals for included studies.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0191354.g003

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Fig 4. Meta-regression analysis assessing the effect of various patient characteristics on sinus rhythm at discharge.

LVEF: left ventricular ejection fraction; LAD: left atrial diameter.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0191354.g004

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Fig 5. Forest plot of subgroup analysis for sinus rhythm prevalence at discharge according to ablation energy source, showing summary of ORs with 95% confidence intervals for included studies.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0191354.g005

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Fig 6. Forest plot of subgroup analysis for sinus rhythm prevalence at discharge according to number of patients, showing summary of ORs with 95% confidence intervals for included studies.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0191354.g006

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Fig 7. Meta-regression analysis assessing the effect of various patient characteristics on freedom for atrial fibrillation at 1 year follow up.

LVEF: left ventricular ejection fraction; LAD: left atrial diameter.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0191354.g007

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Fig 8. Forest plot of 1-year freedom from atrial fibrillation at 1 year follow-up, showing summary of HRs with 95% confidence intervals for included studies.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0191354.g008

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Fig 9. Meta-regression analysis assessing the effect of various patient characteristics on freedom for atrial fibrillation at 1 year follow up.

LVEF: left ventricular ejection fraction; LAD: left atrial diameter.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0191354.g009

Assessment of safety

Mortality.

Mortality outcomes at 30 days were reported in all studies. The risk of 30-day all-cause mortality was not significantly different between CS + LA and CS groups at 30 days (2.7% vs. 2.3%; OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.43–2.60; P = 0.90; I2 = 0%; Fig 10). Furthermore, all-cause late mortality was also not significantly different (1.7% vs. 2.4%; OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.30–5.29; P = 0.76; I2 = 0%; Fig 11). No significant heterogeneity was observed in these two comparisons.

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Fig 10. Forest plot of 30-day mortality, showing summary ORs with 95% confidence intervals for included studies.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0191354.g010

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Fig 11. Forest plot of late mortality, showing summary ORs with 95% confidence intervals for included studies.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0191354.g011

Neurological events.

All but one study reported outcomes for neurological events. The rates of neurological events ranged from 0 to 10.3% in the studies. 4 of 10 studies with a total of 329 patients reported no neurological events. 3 of 10 studies with a total of 137 patients reported a rate of neurological events above 9%. Overall there was a comparable results between CS + LA and CS groups with no significant heterogeneity (3.2% vs. 3.2%; OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.41–2.67; P = 0.92; I2 = 0%; Fig 12).

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Fig 12. Forest plot of neurological events, showing summary ORs with 95% confidence intervals for included studies.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0191354.g012

Permanent pacemaker implantations.

Permanent pacemaker implantations were reported in nine out of eleven included studies. The permanent pacemaker implantation percentage was 4.7% on average in these studies with a range from 0 to 16.9%. 3 of 9 studies reported no permanent pacemaker implantation with 164 patients included. 3 of 9 studies reported a percentage over 11% with a total of 153 patients. Overall, there was no difference in pacemaker implantations whether left atrial ablation was performed or not (5.5% vs. 5.1%; OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.48–2.40; P = 0.85; I2 = 5%; Fig 13).

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Fig 13. Forest plot of permanent pacemaker implantations, showing summary ORs with 95% confidence intervals for included studies.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0191354.g013

Reoperation for bleeding.

Reoperation for bleeding were reported in six out of eleven included studies. The average reoperation for bleeding rate was 1.5%, ranging from 0 to 6.2%. 2 of 6 studies reported no reoperation for bleeding with a total of 104 patients. Overall, there was no difference in reoperation for bleeding between CS + LA and CS groups (5.3% vs. 5.1%; OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.31–3.55; P = 0.94; I2 = 0%; Fig 14).

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Fig 14. Forest plot of reoperation for bleeding, showing summary ORs with 95% confidence intervals for included studies.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0191354.g014

Publication bias

Egger’s test detected no publication bias for the major outcomes of this meta-analysis: 30 days mortality (P = 0.52), permanent pacemaker implantations (P = 0.23), neurological events (P = 73), and reoperations for bleeding (P = 0.22). Publication bias was found regarding sinus rhythm prevalence at 1 year (P = 0.02). After excluding the study of Chevalier or Wang, no publication bias was detected with P value of 0.09 and 0.06, respectively.

Discussion

AF has been supposed to be caused by the multiple and disorganized re-entrant circuits in atrial walls. Cox-Maze III procedure firstly applied by Dr James L Cox in 1992 was the gold standard treatment for AF. During the past two decades, modified Cox-Maze procedures and multiple ablation energy improved the outcomes of surgical ablation compared with traditional Cox-Maze III procedure. A recent meta-analysis has confirmed the cardiac surgery with concomitant surgical ablation is an effective and safe strategy for AF[10]. However, the efficacy and safety of simplified left atrial surgical ablation were not established. Thus, our study aims to report the clinical outcomes of CS+LA versus CS through a meta-analysis of RCTs.

AF has been consistently proved to be an independent predictor of life and survival, which suggests that the restoration of SR in AF patients is a critical therapeutic strategy[24–27]. For example, the AFFIRM study proved that the prevalence of SR was an important, independent predictor of survival, after adjustment for clinical variables such as age and comorbidities[26]. The risk to die among patients in SR was almost half of those who did not improve from AF (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.53; 99% CI, 0.39 to 0.72; P<0.0001). In the present meta-analysis, we demonstrated that a higher SR prevalence in the CS+LA group at discharge (65.8% vs. 30.0%), 6-month (55.8% vs. 24.4%) and 1-year (55.1% vs. 20.8%) follow-up compared to CS group. Surgical ablation also improved the freedom from atrial fibrillation at 1-year follow up (HR, 0.41, 95% CI, 0.37–0.46; P<0.00001; I2 = 92). Previous meta-analyses had proved that concomitant surgical ablation was a safe and effective at restoring rhythm during cardiac surgery with no exception for mitral valve surgery[10, 11]. The surgical ablation group had a higher prevalence of sinus rhythm at all ≥ 12 month follow up (OR, 6.72; 95% CI 4.88 to 9.25; P<0.00001). The mortality, pacemaker implantation and neurological events were similar compared with no surgical ablation group. Another meta-analysis comparing biatrial ablation (BA) and left atrial ablation for AF found that the superiority of BA for restoring SR only maintained in 1 year with no difference beyond 1 year[28]. The SR prevalence in BA and LA group was similar for patients with follow-up beyond 1 year (59 vs 64%; OR 1.03; 95% CI 0.70–1.51; P = 0.87; I2 = 26%). Our meta-analysis proved that left atrial ablation was an effective therapeutic strategy to restore SR in persistent or permanent AF patients, which was a good supplement to the previous studies.

The present meta-analysis found acceptable 30-day mortality (range: 0–8.3%) and all-cause late mortality rates (range: 0–7.5%) in included RCTs with no significant difference between CS+LA and CS group. Considering five of eleven studies underwent the traditional cut-and-sew techniques, the low mortality justified the safety of cut-and-sew in left atrial maze surgery. However, the small number of patients in RCTs suggested this result should be treated with caution.

Performing surgical atrial fibrillation in conjunction with cardiac surgery was supposed to increase the risk for postoperative permanent pacemaker requirement[29]. The adjusted odds of permanent pacemaker implantation was higher in surgical ablation group than that in patients with no history of AF who underwent cardiac surgery (OR 2.7; 95% CI 1.7–4.4). In the present meta-analysis, permanent pacemaker implantations were similar in CS+LA and CS group with a proportion of 5.5% and 5.1%, which was lower than the 5.94 to 7.10% reported by a large retrospective study of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Cardiac Database[30]. This result suggested that LA lesion set was a safe procedure in terms of pacemaker implantation. It was consistent with a recent retrospective study which found that not left atrial but biatrial lesion set was the only statistically significant predictor of permanent pacemaker implantation after concomitant surgical ablation for AF through a univariate and multivariate analysis of 594 patients[31]. Demographic data, type of surgical procedure, and type of energy source did not have a significant impact of pacemaker implantation rate. The enhanced SR outcomes may reduce the incidence of permanent pacemaker implantation. However, this speculation should be taken with caution as studies reported different indications for pacemaker implantations.

No significant difference was found between CS+LA and CS group in terms of neurological events. Previous studies reported a protective effect from neurological events after Cox-Maze technique in AF patients undergoing concomitant cardiac surgery[32–35]. The negative outcome in our meta-analysis may be as a result of mixed factors including prosthetic valve implantation, oral anti-coagulant or anti-platelet drugs, and the interaction between antiarrhythmic and anti-coagulant drugs. We also found a similar reoperation rates for bleeding in these two groups. This result was logically reasonable as the reoperation for bleeding was similar in mixed BA and LA surgical ablation compared with cardiac surgery alone[10].

There are several limitations to our meta-analysis. Firstly, the RCTs included in this meta-analysis were small sample size studies. Secondly, the variant ablation or cut-and-sew lines in left atrial among RCTs may had influence on the efficacy of surgical ablation. Thirdly, the follow-up results beyond 1 year were not reported in most RCTs which cast doubts on the long-term efficacy of surgical ablation. Fourthly, AF monitoring in RCTs were based on ECG or 24h Holter at specific time point which may not be effective to detect the paroxysmal or asymptomatic recurrent episodes. Fifthly, publication bias was found in the present meta-analysis. However, the main outcomes were robust in sensitive analysis.

Conclusion

We draw a conclusion that concomitant left atrial surgical ablation and cardiac surgery for persistent or permanent AF has a good efficacy for restoration of SR in 1 year following surgery. The 30 day mortality, late all-cause mortality, neurological events and permanent pacemaker implantation are of no significant difference between two groups. Thus, our meta-analysis demonstrates that left atrial surgical ablation is an effective therapeutic strategy for AF patients undergoing concomitant cardiac surgery without increased risk of mortality and morbidity.

Supporting information

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

S1 File. PRISMA checklist.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0191354.s001

(DOC)

Acknowledgments

The present study was supported by grants from Taizhou science and technology bureau (2016A33739).

Citation: Wang X, Wang C, Ye M, Lin J, Jin J, Hu Q, et al. (2018) Left atrial concomitant surgical ablation for treatment of atrial fibrillation in cardiac surgery: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. PLoS ONE 13(1): e0191354. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0191354

References

1. Lee R, Mccarthy PM, Wang EC, Vaduganathan M, Kruse J, Malaisrie SC, et al. Midterm survival in patients treated for atrial fibrillation: a propensity-matched comparison to patients without a history of atrial fibrillation. Journal of Thoracic & Cardiovascular Surgery. 2012;143(6):1341.

2. Gillinov AM, Saltman AE. Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation with Concomitant Cardiac Surgery. Seminars in Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. 19(1):25–32. pmid:17403454

3. Ad N, Cheng DC, Martin J, Berglin EE, Chang BC, Doukas G, et al. Surgical Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation in Cardiac Surgery: A Consensus Statement of the International Society of Minimally Invasive Cardiothoracic Surgery (ISMICS) 2009. Innovations. 2010;5(2):74–83. pmid:22437353

4. Ad N, Henry L, Massimiano P, Pritchard G, Holmes SD. The state of surgical ablation for atrial fibrillation in patients with mitral valve disease. Current Opinion in Cardiology. 2013;28(2):170–80. pmid:23295553

5. Melo J, Santiago T, Aguiar C, Berglin E, Knaut M, Alfieri O, et al. Surgery for atrial fibrillation in patients with mitral valve disease: results at five years from the International Registry of Atrial Fibrillation Surgery. Journal of Thoracic & Cardiovascular Surgery. 2008;135(4):863–9.

6. Khargi K, Deneke T, Haardt H, Lemke B, Grewe P, Müller KM, et al. Saline-irrigated, cooled-tip radiofrequency ablation is an effective technique to perform the Maze procedure. Annals of Thoracic Surgery. 2001;72(3):1090–5.

7. Cox JL, Schuessler R, D'Agostino H Jr, Stone C, Chang B- C, Cain M, et al. The surgical treatment of atrial fibrillation. III. Development of a definitive surgical procedure. The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery. 1991;101(4):569–83. pmid:2008095

8. Cox JL, Schuessler RB, Boineau JP. The development of the Maze procedure for the treatment of AF. Seminars in Thoracic & Cardiovascular Surgery. 2000;12(1):2–14.

9. Haïssaguerre M, Jaïs P, Shah DC, Takahashi A, Hocini M, Quiniou G, et al. Spontaneous initiation of atrial fibrillation by ectopic beats originating in the pulmonary veins. New England Journal of Medicine. 1998;339(10):659–66. pmid:9725923

10. Phan K, Xie A, La Meir M, Black D, Yan TD. Surgical ablation for treatment of atrial fibrillation in cardiac surgery: a cumulative meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Heart. 2014;100(9):722–30. pmid:24650881

11. Phan K, Xie A, Tian DH, Shaikhrezai K, Yan TD. Systematic review and meta-analysis of surgical ablation for atrial fibrillation during mitral valve surgery. Annals of Cardiothoracic Surgery. 2014;3(1):3–14. pmid:24516793

12. Tierney JF, Stewart LA, Ghersi D, Burdett S, Sydes MR. Practical methods for incorporating summary time-to-event data into meta-analysis. Trials. 2007;8(1):16.

13. Wang X, Wang X, Song Y, Hu S, Wang W. Efficiency of radiofrequency ablation for surgical treatment of chronic atrial fibrillation in rheumatic valvular disease. International Journal of Cardiology. 2014;174(3):497–502. pmid:24820759

14. Vasconcelos JT, Scanavacca MI, Sampaio RO, Grinberg M, Sosa EA, Oliveira SA. Surgical treatment of atrial fibrillation through isolation of the left atrial posterior wall in patients with chronic rheumatic mitral valve disease. A randomized study with control group. Arquivos Brasileiros De Cardiologia. 2004;83(3):203–10.

15. Srivastava V, Kumar S, Javali S, Rajesh TR, Pai V, Khandekar J, et al. Efficacy of Three Different Ablative Procedures to Treat Atrial Fibrillation in Patients with Valvular Heart Disease: A Randomised Trial. Heart, Lung and Circulation. 17(3):232–40. pmid:18242137

16. Schuetz A, Schulze CJ, Sarvanakis KK, Mair H, Plazer H, Kilger E, et al. Surgical treatment of permanent atrial fibrillation using microwave energy ablation: a prospective randomized clinical trial. European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery: official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery. 2003;24(4):475.

17. Knaut M, Kolberg S, Brose S, Jung F. Epicardial microwave ablation of permanent atrial fibrillation during a coronary bypass and/or aortic valve operation: prospective, randomised, controlled, mono-centric study. Applied Cardiopulmonary Pathophysiology. 2010;14(4):249-.

18. Doukas G, Samani NJ, Alexiou C, Chin DT, Stafford PG, Spyt TJ, editors. Left atrial radiofrequency ablation during mitral valve surgery for continuous atrial fibrillation: Results of a prospective randomised clinical trial. Conference of G-Mex/micc; 2005.

19. de Lima GG, Kalil RA, Leiria TL, Hatem DM, Kruse CL, Abrahão R, et al. Randomized study of surgery for patients with permanent atrial fibrillation as a result of mitral valve disease. Annals of Thoracic Surgery. 2004;77(6):2089. pmid:15172273

20. Chevalier P, Leizorovicz A, Maureira P, Carteaux JP, Corbineau H, Caus T, et al. Left atrial radiofrequency ablation during mitral valve surgery: a prospective randomized multicentre study (SAFIR). Archives of Cardiovascular Diseases. 2009;102(11):769–75. pmid:19944393

21. Cherniavsky A, Kareva Y, Pak I, Rakhmonov S, Pokushalov E, Romanov A, et al. Assessment of results of surgical treatment for persistent atrial fibrillation during coronary artery bypass grafting using implantable loop recorders. Interactive cardiovascular and thoracic surgery. 2014;18(6):727–31. pmid:24572769

22. Blomström-Lundqvist C, Johansson B, Berglin E, Nilsson L, Jensen SM, Thelin S, et al. A randomized double-blind study of epicardial left atrial cryoablation for permanent atrial fibrillation in patients undergoing mitral valve surgery: the SWEDish Multicentre Atrial Fibrillation study (SWEDMAF). European Heart Journal. 2007;28(23):2902–8. pmid:17984136

23. Albrecht A, Kalil RA, Schuch L, Abrahão R, Sant'Anna JR, De LG, et al. Randomized study of surgical isolation of the pulmonary veins for correction of permanent atrial fibrillation associated with mitral valve disease. Journal of Thoracic & Cardiovascular Surgery. 2009;138(2):454.

24. Glotzer TV, Hellkamp AS, Zimmerman J, Sweeney MO, Yee R, Marinchak R, et al. Atrial high rate episodes detected by pacemaker diagnostics predict death and stroke: report of the Atrial Diagnostics Ancillary Study of the MOde Selection Trial (MOST). Circulation. 2003;107(12):1614. pmid:12668495

25. Wolf PA, Mitchell JB, Baker CS, Kannel WB, D'Agostino RB. Impact of atrial fibrillation on mortality, stroke, and medical costs. Archives of Internal Medicine. 1998;158(3):229. pmid:9472202

26. Corley SD. Relationships between sinus rhythm, treatment and survival in the Atrial Fibrillation Follow-up Investigation of Rhythm Management (AFFIRM) study. Circulation. 2004;13(6):1509–13.

27. Gammie JS, Haddad M, Milford-Beland S, Welke KF Jr, F T, O'Brien SM, et al. Atrial fibrillation correction surgery: lessons from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Cardiac Database. Annals of Thoracic Surgery. 2008;85(3):909. pmid:18291169

28. Phan K, Xie A, Tsai YC, Kumar N, La MM, Yan TD. Biatrial ablation vs. left atrial concomitant surgical ablation for treatment of atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis. Heart Lung & Circulation. 2015;24(1):e47–e8.

29. Elchami MF, Binongo JN, Levy M, Merchant FM, Halkos M, Thourani V, et al. Effect of Surgical Atrial Fibrillation Ablation at the Time of Cardiac Surgery on Risk of Postoperative Pacemaker Implantation. American Journal of Cardiology. 2015;116(1):88–91. pmid:25933731

30. Gammie JS, Haddad M, Milfordbeland S, Welke KF Jr F T, O'Brien SM, et al. Atrial fibrillation correction surgery: lessons from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Cardiac Database. Annals of Thoracic Surgery. 2008;85(3):909–14. pmid:18291169

31. Pecha S, Schäfer T, Yildirim Y, Ahmadzade T, Willems S, Reichenspurner H, et al. Predictors for permanent pacemaker implantation after concomitant surgical ablation for atrial fibrillation. Journal of Thoracic & Cardiovascular Surgery. 2014;147(3):984–8.

32. Prasad SM, Maniar HS, Camillo CJ, Schuessler RB, Boineau JP, Sundt TM, III, et al. The Cox maze III procedure for atrial fibrillation: long-term efficacy in patients undergoing lone versus concomitant procedures. The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery. 126(6):1822–7. pmid:14688693

33. Schaff HV, Dearani JA, Daly RC, Orszulak TA, Danielson GK. Cox-Maze procedure for atrial fibrillation: Mayo Clinic experience. Seminars in Thoracic & Cardiovascular Surgery. 2000;12(1):30–7.

34. Mccarthy PM, Gillinov AM, Castle L, Chung M, Rd CD. The Cox-Maze procedure: the Cleveland Clinic experience. Seminars in Thoracic & Cardiovascular Surgery. 2000;12(1):25–9.

35. Cheng DCH, Ad N, Martin J, Berglin EE, Chang B-C, Doukas G, et al. Surgical Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation in Cardiac Surgery: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review. Innovations:Technology and Techniques in Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery. 2010;5(2):84–96. pmid:22437354