Hanafy Dudy Arman, Erdianto Wahyu Prima, Husen Theresia Feline, Nathania Ilona, Vidya Ananda Pipphali, Angelica Ruth, Suwatri Widya Trianita, Lintangella Pasati, Prasetyo Priscillia
Division of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Indonesia, Jl. Salemba Raya No. 6, Kenari, Jakarta 10430, Indonesia.
Division of Adult Cardiac Surgery, Department of Surgery, National Cardiovascular Center, Harapan Kita, Jakarta 11420, Indonesia.
J Clin Med. 2023 Sep 1;12(17):5716. doi: 10.3390/jcm12175716.
Atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation is a frequent procedure used in concomitant cardiac surgery. However, uncertainty still exists concerning the optimal extent of lesion sets. Hence, the objective of this study was to assess the results of various ablation techniques, aiming to offer a reference for clinical decision making. This review is listed in the prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) under ID CRD42023412785. A comprehensive search was conducted across eight databases (Scopus, Google Scholar, EBSCOHost, PubMed, Medline, Wiley, ProQuest, and Embase) up to 18 April 2023. Studies were critically appraised using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 for randomized control trials (RCTs) and the Newcastle Ottawa Scale adapted by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) for cohort studies. Forest plots of pooled effect estimates and surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) were used for the analysis. Our analysis included 39 studies and a total of 7207 patients. Both bi-atrial ablation (BAA) and left atrial ablation (LAA) showed similar efficacy in restoring sinus rhythm (SR; BAA (77.9%) > LAA (76.2%) > pulmonary vein isolation (PVI; 66.5%); LAA: OR = 1.08 (CI 0.94-1.23); PVI: OR = 1.36 (CI 1.08-1.70)). However, BAA had higher pacemaker implantation (LAA: OR = 0.51 (CI 0.37-0.71); PVI: OR = 0.52 (CI 0.31-0.86)) and reoperation rates (LAA: OR = 0.71 (CI 0.28-1.45); PVI: OR = 0.31 (CI 0.1-0.64)). PVI had the lowest efficacy in restoring SR and a similar complication rate to LAA, but had the shortest procedure time (Cross-clamp (Xc): PVI (93.38) > LAA (37.36) > BAA (13.89)); Cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB): PVI (93.93) > LAA (56.04) > BAA (0.03)). We suggest that LAA is the best surgical technique for AF ablation due to its comparable effectiveness in restoring SR, its lower rate of pacemaker requirement, and its lower reoperation rate compared to BAA. Furthermore, LAA ranks as the second-fastest procedure after PVI, with a similar CPB time.
心房颤动(AF)消融术是心脏外科手术中常用的一种手术。然而,关于最佳消融范围仍存在不确定性。因此,本研究的目的是评估各种消融技术的效果,旨在为临床决策提供参考。本综述已列入系统评价前瞻性注册库(PROSPERO),编号为CRD42023412785。截至2023年4月18日,我们在八个数据库(Scopus、谷歌学术、EBSCOHost、PubMed、Medline、Wiley、ProQuest和Embase)中进行了全面检索。对于随机对照试验(RCT),使用Cochrane偏倚风险2.0进行严格评估;对于队列研究,使用美国医疗保健研究与质量局(AHRQ)改编的纽卡斯尔渥太华量表进行评估。采用合并效应估计的森林图和累积排序曲线下面积(SUCRA)进行分析。我们的分析纳入了39项研究,共7207例患者。双心房消融(BAA)和左心房消融(LAA)在恢复窦性心律(SR)方面显示出相似的疗效(BAA(77.9%)>LAA(76.2%)>肺静脉隔离(PVI;66.5%);LAA:OR = 1.08(CI 0.94 - 1.23);PVI:OR = 1.36(CI 1.08 - 1.70))。然而,BAA的起搏器植入率较高(LAA:OR = 0.51(CI 0.37 - 0.71);PVI:OR = 0.52(CI 0.31 - 0.86))和再次手术率较高(LAA:OR = 0.71(CI 0.28 - 1.45);PVI:OR = 0.31(CI 0.1 - 0.64))。PVI恢复SR的疗效最低,并发症发生率与LAA相似,但手术时间最短(阻断钳夹(Xc):PVI(93.38)>LAA(37.36)>BAA(13.89));体外循环(CPB):PVI(93.93)>LAA(56.04)>BAA(0.03))。我们认为,LAA是AF消融术的最佳手术技术,因为它在恢复SR方面具有相当的有效性,与BAA相比,起搏器需求率较低,再次手术率也较低。此外,LAA是仅次于PVI的第二快手术,体外循环时间相似。