Download PDF
Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2016; 64(08): 661-671
DOI: 10.1055/s-0035-1554941
Original Cardiovascular
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Comparison of Left Atrial and Biatrial Maze Procedure in the Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation: A Meta-Analysis of Clinical Studies

Shuai Zheng
1   Department of Cardiac Surgery, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China
,
Haibo Zhang
1   Department of Cardiac Surgery, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China
,
Yan Li
1   Department of Cardiac Surgery, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China
,
Jie Han
1   Department of Cardiac Surgery, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China
,
Yixin Jia
1   Department of Cardiac Surgery, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China
,
Xu Meng
1   Department of Cardiac Surgery, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

03 December 2014

31 March 2015

Publication Date:
28 July 2015 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints All articles of this category

Abstract

Background The outcomes of atrial fibrillation (AF) between biatrial maze (BAM) and left atrial maze (LAM) are still controversial. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical and rhythm outcomes between BAM and LAM in patients with AF.

Methods Electronic databases and article references were systematically searched (1990–2014) to access relevant studies. Odds ratio (OR) and weight mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were reported.

Results Fourteen studies with 2,075 patients were finally involved in the present meta-analysis. The rate of restored sinus rhythm (SR) was similar in BAM and LAM groups (OR: 1.25, 95% CI: 0.91–1.72, p = 0.163). BAM reduced the prevalence of atrial flutter during follow-up (OR: 0.12, 95% CI: 0.01–0.96, p = 0.046). Compared with BAM, LAM shorten aortic cross-clamping time (WMD = 9.05 minutes, 95% CI: 1.28–16.82, p = 0.023) and cardiopulmonary bypass time (WMD = 20.21 minutes, 95% CI: 7.40–33.03, p = 0.002). No significant difference was found between groups in the risk of death (OR: 1.22, 95% CI: 0.70–2.14, p = 0.233), cerebrovascular events (OR: 1.44, 95% CI: 0.51–4.06, p = 0.493), and reoperation for bleeding (OR: 1.34, 95% CI: 0.70–2.55, p = 0.374). However, the risk for implantation of permanent pacemaker was significantly higher in BAM group (OR: 2.60, 95% CI: 1.09–6.20, p = 0.031).

Conclusion No significant difference was found between BAM and LAM in the rate of restored SR, the risk of death, cerebrovascular events, and reoperation for bleeding. BAM is superior to LAM in reducing the prevalence of atrial flutter during follow-up, but LAM shortens the aortic cross-clamping time and cardiopulmonary bypass time, and decreases the risk of permanent pacemaker implantation.

Keywords

meta-analysis - atrial fibrillation - maze procedure
 

  • References

  • 1 Fuster V, Rydén LE, Cannom DS , et al. 2011 ACCF/AHA/HRS focused updates incorporated into the ACC/AHA/ESC 2006 Guidelines for the management of patients with atrial fibrillation: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines developed in partnership with the European Society of Cardiology and in collaboration with the European Heart Rhythm Association and the Heart Rhythm Society. J Am Coll Cardiol 2011; 57 (11) e101-e198
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Cox JL. The surgical treatment of atrial fibrillation. IV. Surgical technique. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1991; 101 (4) 584-592
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Calkins H, Kuck KH, Cappato R , et al; Heart Rhythm Society Task Force on Catheter and Surgical Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation. 2012 HRS/EHRA/ECAS expert consensus statement on catheter and surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation: recommendations for patient selection, procedural techniques, patient management and followup, definitions, endpoints, and research trial design: a report of the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS) Task Force on Catheter and Surgical Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation. Developed in partnership with the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA), a registered branch of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Cardiac Arrhythmia Society (ECAS); and in collaboration with the American College of Cardiology (ACC), American Heart Association (AHA), the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS). Endorsed by the governing bodies of the American College of Cardiology Foundation, the American Heart Association, the European Cardiac Arrhythmia Society, the European Heart Rhythm Association, the Society of Thoracic Surgeons, the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society, and the Heart Rhythm Society. Heart Rhythm 2012; 9 (4) 632-696.e21
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Haïssaguerre M, Jaïs P, Shah DC , et al. Spontaneous initiation of atrial fibrillation by ectopic beats originating in the pulmonary veins. N Engl J Med 1998; 339 (10) 659-666
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Barnett SD, Ad N. Surgical ablation as treatment for the elimination of atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2006; 131 (5) 1029-1035
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Takami Y, Yasuura K, Takagi Y , et al. Partial maze procedure is effective treatment for chronic atrial fibrillation associated with valve disease. J Card Surg 1999; 14 (2) 103-108
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Guden M, Akpinar B, Caynak B , et al. Left versus bi-atrial intraoperative saline-irrigated radiofrequency modified maze procedure for atrial fibrillation. Card Electrophysiol Rev 2003; 7 (3) 252-258
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Ryan WH, Prince HB, Wheatley III GH , et al. Experience with various surgical options for the treatment of atrial fibrillation. Heart Surg Forum 2004; 7 (4) E333-E336 , discussion E336
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Deneke T, Khargi K, Lemke B , et al. Intra-operative cooled-tip radiofrequency linear atrial ablation to treat permanent atrial fibrillation. Eur Heart J 2007; 28 (23) 2909-2914
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Geuzebroek GS, Ballaux PK, van Hemel NM, Kelder JC, Defauw JJ. Medium-term outcome of different surgical methods to cure atrial fibrillation: is less worse?. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2008; 7 (2) 201-206
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Srivastava V, Kumar S, Javali S , et al. Efficacy of three different ablative procedures to treat atrial fibrillation in patients with valvular heart disease: a randomised trial. Heart Lung Circ 2008; 17 (3) 232-240
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Deneke T, Khargi K, Voss D , et al. Long-term sinus rhythm stability after intraoperative ablation of permanent atrial fibrillation. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2009; 32 (5) 653-659
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Wang J, Meng X, Li H, Cui Y, Han J, Xu C. Prospective randomized comparison of left atrial and biatrial radiofrequency ablation in the treatment of atrial fibrillation. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2009; 35 (1) 116-122
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 McCarthy PM, Kruse J, Shalli S , et al. Where does atrial fibrillation surgery fail? Implications for increasing effectiveness of ablation. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2010; 139 (4) 860-867
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Albåge A, Péterffy M, Källner G. Learning what works in surgical cryoablation of atrial fibrillation: results of different application techniques and benefits of prospective follow-up. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2011; 13 (5) 480-484
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Breda JR, Breda AS, Ragognette RG , et al. Comparison of uniatrial and biatrial radiofrequency ablation procedures in atrial fibrillation: initial results. Heart Surg Forum 2011; 14 (5) E271-E275
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Kim JB, Bang JH, Jung SH, Choo SJ, Chung CH, Lee JW. Left atrial ablation versus biatrial ablation in the surgical treatment of atrial fibrillation. Ann Thorac Surg 2011; 92 (4) 1397-1404 , discussion 1404–1405
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Onorati F, Mariscalco G, Rubino AS , et al. Impact of lesion sets on mid-term results of surgical ablation procedure for atrial fibrillation. J Am Coll Cardiol 2011; 57 (8) 931-940
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Soni LK, Cedola SR, Cogan J , et al. Right atrial lesions do not improve the efficacy of a complete left atrial lesion set in the surgical treatment of atrial fibrillation, but they do increase procedural morbidity. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2013; 145 (2) 356-361 , discussion 361–363
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet 1999; 354 (9193) 1896-1900
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC , et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA 2000; 283 (15) 2008-2012
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Khargi K, Hutten BA, Lemke B, Deneke T. Surgical treatment of atrial fibrillation; a systematic review. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2005; 27 (2) 258-265
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Phan K, Xie A, Tsai YC, Kumar N, La Meir M, Yan TD. Biatrial ablation vs. left atrial concomitant surgical ablation for treatment of atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis. Europace 2015; 17 (1) 38-47
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Gillinov AM, Bhavani S, Blackstone EH , et al. Surgery for permanent atrial fibrillation: impact of patient factors and lesion set. Ann Thorac Surg 2006; 82 (2) 502-513 , discussion 513–514
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Jaïs P, Hocini M, Hsu LF , et al. Technique and results of linear ablation at the mitral isthmus. Circulation 2004; 110 (19) 2996-3002
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Ad N, Henry L, Hunt S, Holmes SD. Do we increase the operative risk by adding the Cox Maze III procedure to aortic valve replacement and coronary artery bypass surgery?. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2012; 143 (4) 936-944
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar