» Articles » PMID: 25567961

A Systematic Review of Minimally Invasive Surgical Treatment for Atrial Fibrillation: a Comparison of the Cox-Maze Procedure, Beating-heart Epicardial Ablation, and the Hybrid Procedure on Safety and Efficacy

Overview
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

There is a growing trend to perform off-bypass surgical ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) because it is perceived to be safer and more effective than the Cox-Maze procedure with cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) support. In this systematic review, we compared three minimally invasive stand-alone surgical ablation procedures for AF: the endocardial Cox-Maze procedure, epicardial surgical ablation and a hybrid epicardial surgical and catheter-based endocardial ablation procedure (hybrid procedure). Relevant studies were identified in MEDLINE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. From 565 initial studies, 37 were included in this review. The total number of patients across all studies was 1877 (range 10-139). Two studies reported on endocardial Cox-Maze procedures (n = 145), 26 reported on epicardial surgical ablation (n = 1382) and 9 reported on hybrid surgical ablation (n = 350). For minimally invasive Cox-Maze, epicardial and hybrid groups, operative mortality rates were 0, 0.5 and 0.9%, perioperative permanent pacemaker insertion rates were 3.5, 2.7 and 1.5%, incidence of conversion to median sternotomy was 0, 2.4 and 2.5%, and reoperation for bleeding was 1.0, 1.5 and 2.2%, with mean length of stay (days) of 5.4, 6.0 and 4.6, respectively. At 12 months, rates of sinus rhythm restoration were 93, 80 and 70%, and sinus restoration without anti-arrhythmic medications was 87, 72 and 71%, for Cox-Maze, epicardial and hybrid procedures, respectively. Of the three procedures, the minimally invasive Cox-Maze procedure with CPB support was most effective for the treatment of stand-alone AF and had important safety advantages in conversion to sternotomy and major bleeding. The minimally invasive Cox-Maze procedure with CPB support also demonstrated the potential for a higher success rate 12 months following the procedure.

Citing Articles

Surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation: Rationale and technique.

Waterford S, Ad N Turk Gogus Kalp Damar Cerrahisi Derg. 2024; 32(3):245-252.

PMID: 39513169 PMC: 11538935. DOI: 10.5606/tgkdc.dergisi.2024.86520.


Narrative Review: Surgical and Hybrid Management of Atrial Fibrillation.

Trohman R Cardiol Ther. 2024; 13(3):493-528.

PMID: 39134905 PMC: 11333670. DOI: 10.1007/s40119-024-00377-2.


Hybrid atrial fibrillation ablation.

van der Heijden C, Aerts L, Chaldoupi S, van Cruchten C, Kawczynski M, Heuts S Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2024; 13(1):54-70.

PMID: 38380145 PMC: 10875200. DOI: 10.21037/acs-2023-afm-0129.


Beyond Conventional Operations: Embracing the Era of Contemporary Minimally Invasive Cardiac Surgery.

Ilcheva L, Risteski P, Tudorache I, Haussler A, Papadopoulos N, Odavic D J Clin Med. 2023; 12(23).

PMID: 38068262 PMC: 10707549. DOI: 10.3390/jcm12237210.


2023 APHRS expert consensus statements on surgery for AF.

Nitta T, Wai J, Lee S, Yii M, Chaiyaroj S, Ruaengsri C J Arrhythm. 2023; 39(6):841-852.

PMID: 38045465 PMC: 10692856. DOI: 10.1002/joa3.12939.