The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2018
Biatrial maze procedure versus pulmonary vein isolation for atrial fibrillation during mitral valve surgery: New analytical approaches and end points.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Blackstone Eugene H, Chang Helena L, Rajeswaran Jeevanantham, Parides Michael K, Ishwaran Hemant, Li Liang, Ehrlinger John, Gelijns Annetine C, Moskowitz Alan J, Argenziano Michael, DeRose Joseph J, Couderc Jean-Phillipe, Balda Dan, Dagenais François, Mack Michael J, Ailawadi Gorav, Smith Peter K, Acker Michael A, O'Gara Patrick T, Gillinov A Marc, Cardiothoracic Surgical Trials Network Investigators
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To use novel statistical methods for analyzing the effect of lesion set on (long-standing) persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) in the Cardiothoracic Surgical Trials Network trial of surgical ablation during mitral valve surgery (MVS).
METHODS: Two hundred sixty such patients were randomized to MVS + surgical ablation or MVS alone. Ablation was randomized between pulmonary vein isolation and biatrial maze. During 12 months postsurgery, 228 patients (88%) submitted 7949 transtelephonic monitoring (TTM) recordings, analyzed for AF, atrial flutter (AFL), or atrial tachycardia (AT). As previously reported, more ablation than MVS-alone patients were free of AF or AF/AFL at 6 and 12 months (63% vs 29%; P < .001) by 72-hour Holter monitoring, without evident difference between lesion sets (for which the trial was underpowered).
RESULTS: Estimated freedom from AF/AFL/AT on any transmission trended higher after biatrial maze than pulmonary vein isolation (odds ratio, 2.31; 95% confidence interval, 0.95-5.65; P = .07) 3 to 12 months postsurgery; estimated AF/AFL/AT load (ie, proportion of TTM strips recording AF/AFL/AT) was similar (odds ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-1.43; P = .6). Within 12 months, estimated prevalence of AF/AFL/AT by TTM was 58% after MVS alone, and 36% versus 23% after pulmonary vein isolation versus biatrial maze (P < .02).
CONCLUSIONS: Statistical modeling using TTM recordings after MVS in patients with (long-standing) persistent AF suggests that a biatrial maze is associated with lower AF/AFL/AT prevalence, but not a lower load, compared with pulmonary vein isolation. The discrepancy between AF/AFL/AT prevalence assessed at 2 time points by Holter monitoring versus weekly TTM suggests the need for a confirmatory trial, reassessment of definitions for failure after ablation, and validation of statistical methods for assessing atrial rhythms longitudinally.
METHODS: Two hundred sixty such patients were randomized to MVS + surgical ablation or MVS alone. Ablation was randomized between pulmonary vein isolation and biatrial maze. During 12 months postsurgery, 228 patients (88%) submitted 7949 transtelephonic monitoring (TTM) recordings, analyzed for AF, atrial flutter (AFL), or atrial tachycardia (AT). As previously reported, more ablation than MVS-alone patients were free of AF or AF/AFL at 6 and 12 months (63% vs 29%; P < .001) by 72-hour Holter monitoring, without evident difference between lesion sets (for which the trial was underpowered).
RESULTS: Estimated freedom from AF/AFL/AT on any transmission trended higher after biatrial maze than pulmonary vein isolation (odds ratio, 2.31; 95% confidence interval, 0.95-5.65; P = .07) 3 to 12 months postsurgery; estimated AF/AFL/AT load (ie, proportion of TTM strips recording AF/AFL/AT) was similar (odds ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-1.43; P = .6). Within 12 months, estimated prevalence of AF/AFL/AT by TTM was 58% after MVS alone, and 36% versus 23% after pulmonary vein isolation versus biatrial maze (P < .02).
CONCLUSIONS: Statistical modeling using TTM recordings after MVS in patients with (long-standing) persistent AF suggests that a biatrial maze is associated with lower AF/AFL/AT prevalence, but not a lower load, compared with pulmonary vein isolation. The discrepancy between AF/AFL/AT prevalence assessed at 2 time points by Holter monitoring versus weekly TTM suggests the need for a confirmatory trial, reassessment of definitions for failure after ablation, and validation of statistical methods for assessing atrial rhythms longitudinally.