If you have atrial fibrillation (AFib) and need heart surgery that isn't on your mitral valve, your surgeon might suggest adding a procedure called surgical ablation to try to fix your irregular heartbeat during the same operation. A large review of studies looked at what happens when this is done. The analysis found that adding the ablation procedure was linked to a significant reduction in AFib coming back after surgery. This is a meaningful benefit for patients hoping to leave the hospital with a normal heart rhythm. However, the review also found a clear trade-off: patients who had the ablation were more likely to need a permanent pacemaker implanted after their surgery. The analysis did not find a difference in the risk of dying early after surgery or having a stroke between those who got the ablation and those who only had the planned heart surgery. This information helps patients and doctors have a clearer conversation about the potential pros and cons of combining these procedures.
For heart surgery patients with AFib, does adding a procedure to fix the rhythm help?
Plain Language Summary
What this means for you:
Adding a rhythm-fixing procedure during heart surgery reduces post-op AFib but raises the chance of needing a pacemaker. What this means for you:
Adding a rhythm-fixing procedure during heart surgery reduces post-op AFib but raises the chance of needing a pacemaker. View Original Abstract ↓
BACKGROUND: Surgical ablation (SA) is a key treatment for atrial fibrillation (AF) patients undergoing heart surgery. However, direct comparisons between SA and non-mitral valve (non-MV) surgery alone are lacking. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing concomitant SA to isolated non-MV surgery in AF patients.
METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane were searched. Outcomes of interest were: (1) postoperative AF (POAF); (2) early all-cause mortality; (3) postoperative pacemaker implantation and (4) stroke. Additionally, a subgroup analysis comparing randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and propensity score-matched studies (PSM) was conducted. Risk ratios (RRs) and their respective 95% CI were calculated using a random effects model.
RESULTS: After screening 6423 citations, we included 2 RCTs and 5 PSM studies encompassing 39 348 AF patients undergoing non-MV surgery, of whom 18 394 (46.7%) underwent SA. Compared with isolated non-MV surgery, SA was associated with significant POAF reduction (RR: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.67 to 0.79; I=0%) and higher risk of postoperative pacemaker implantation (RR: 1.34; 95% CI: 1.14 to 1.57, I=0%) compared with surgery alone. No differences were found in early all-cause mortality (RR: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.76 to 1.22; I=65%) and postoperative stroke (RR: 1.06; 95% CI: 0.89 to 1.26; I=0%). The subgroup analysis comparing RCTs and PSM showed significant consistency among the different designs.
CONCLUSIONS: In this meta-analysis, SA was associated with POAF reduction in non-MV surgery. In terms of safety, it was suggested that although no difference in early mortality and postoperative stroke was observed, SA had a higher risk of pacemaker implantation than isolated non-MV surgery.