Vroomen Mindy, Franke Ulrich, Senges Jochen, Friedrich Ivar, Fischlein Theodor, Lewalter Thorsten, Ouarrak Taoufik, Niemann Bernd, Liebold Andreas, Hanke Thorsten, Doll Nicolas, Albert Marc
Department of Cardiac and Vascular Surgery, Robert-Bosch-Hospital, Stuttgart, Germany.
Stiftung Institut für Herzinfarktforschung, Ludwigshafen, Germany.
Interdiscip Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2024 Sep 4;39(3). doi: 10.1093/icvts/ivae139.
A considerable number of patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting surgery suffer from atrial fibrillation and should be treated concomitantly. This manuscript evaluates the impact of on-pump versus off-pump bypass grafting on the applied lesion set and rhythm outcome.
Between January 2017 and April 2020, patients who underwent combined bypass grafting and surgical ablation for atrial fibrillation were consecutively enrolled in the German CArdioSurgEry Atrial Fibrillation registry (CASE-AF, 17 centres). Data were prospectively collected. Follow-up was planned after one year.
A total of 224 patients were enrolled. No differences in baseline characteristics were seen between on- and off-pump bypass grafting, especially not in type of atrial fibrillation and left atrial size. In the on-pump group (n = 171, 76%), pulmonary vein isolation and an extended left atrial lesion set were performed more often compared to off-pump bypass grafting (58% vs 26%, 33 vs 9%, respectively, P < 0.001). In off-pump bypass grafting a box isolating the atrial posterior wall was the dominant lesion (72% off-pump vs 42% on-pump, P < 0.001). Left atrial appendage management was comparable in on-pump versus off-pump bypass grafting (94% vs 91%, P = 0.37). Sinus rhythm at follow-up was confirmed in 61% in the on-pump group and in 65% in the off-pump group (P = 0.66). No differences were seen in in-hospital or follow-up complication-rates between the two groups.
In coronary artery bypass grafting patients undergoing concomitant atrial fibrillation ablation, our data suggests that the technique applied for myocardial revascularization (off-pump vs on-pump) leads to differences in the ablation lesion set, but not in safety and effectiveness.
相当数量接受冠状动脉旁路移植手术的患者患有心房颤动,需要同时进行治疗。本手稿评估了体外循环与非体外循环旁路移植对所应用的消融病灶组及节律结果的影响。
2017年1月至2020年4月期间,接受联合旁路移植和心房颤动外科消融的患者连续纳入德国心脏外科心房颤动注册研究(CASE - AF,17个中心)。数据前瞻性收集。计划随访一年。
共纳入224例患者。体外循环与非体外循环旁路移植在基线特征上无差异,尤其是在心房颤动类型和左心房大小方面。在体外循环组(n = 171,76%),与非体外循环旁路移植相比,肺静脉隔离和扩大的左心房消融病灶组实施更为频繁(分别为58%对26%,33%对9%,P < 0.001)。在非体外循环旁路移植中,隔离心房后壁的盒状消融是主要的消融方式(非体外循环组为72%,体外循环组为42%,P < 0.001)。体外循环与非体外循环旁路移植在左心耳处理方面相当(94%对91%,P = 0.37)。随访时,体外循环组61%的患者恢复窦性心律,非体外循环组为65%(P = 0.66)。两组在住院期间或随访并发症发生率方面无差异。
在接受心房颤动消融的冠状动脉旁路移植患者中,我们的数据表明,用于心肌血运重建的技术(非体外循环与体外循环)导致消融病灶组存在差异,但在安全性和有效性方面无差异。