Dataset Information

Barriers to atrial fibrillation ablation during mitral valve surgery.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Nearly 40% of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) undergoing mitral valve surgery do not receive concomitant ablation despite societal guidelines. We assessed barriers to implementation of this evidence-based practice through a survey of cardiac surgeons in 2 statewide quality collaboratives.

Methods

Adult cardiac surgeons across 2 statewide collaboratives were surveyed on their knowledge and practice regarding AF ablation. Questions concerning experience, clinical practice, case scenarios, and barriers to implementation were included.

Results

Among 66 respondents (66 of 135; 48.9%), the majority reported "very comfortable/frequently use" cryoablation (53 of 66; 80.3%) and radiofrequency (55 of 66; 83.3%). Only 12.1% (8/66) were not aware of the recommendations. Approximately one-half of the respondents reported learning AF ablation in fellowship (50.0%; 33 of 66) or attending courses (47.0%; 31 of 66). Responses to clinical scenarios demonstrated wide variability in practice patterns. One-half of the respondents reported no barriers; others cited increased cross-clamp time, excessive patient risk, and arrhythmia incidence as obstacles. Desired interventions included cardiology/electrophysiology support, protocols, pacemaker rate information, and education in the form of site visits, videos and proctors.

Conclusions

Knowledge of evidence-based recommendations and practice patterns vary widely. These data identify several barriers to implementation of concomitant AF ablation and suggest specific interventions (mentorship/support, protocols, research, and education) to overcome these barriers.

SUBMITTER: Mehaffey JH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8446105 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Barriers to atrial fibrillation ablation during mitral valve surgery.

Mehaffey J Hunter JH Charles Eric J EJ Berens Michaela M Clark Melissa J MJ Bond Chris C Fonner Clifford E CE Kron Irving I Gelijns Annetine C AC Miller Marissa A MA Sarin Eric E Romano Matthew M Prager Richard R Badhwar Vinay V Ailawadi Gorav G

The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery 20210317 2

<h4>Background</h4>Nearly 40% of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) undergoing mitral valve surgery do not receive concomitant ablation despite societal guidelines. We assessed barriers to implementation of this evidence-based practice through a survey of cardiac surgeons in 2 statewide quality collaboratives.<h4>Methods</h4>Adult cardiac surgeons across 2 statewide collaboratives were surveyed on their knowledge and practice regarding AF ablation. Questions concerning experience, clinical p ...[more]

PMID: 33840467

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAmong patients undergoing mitral-valve surgery, 30 to 50% present with atrial fibrillation, which is associated with reduced survival and increased risk of stroke. Surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation has been widely adopted, but evidence regarding its safety and effectiveness is limited.MethodsWe randomly assigned 260 patients with persistent or long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation who required mitral-valve surgery to undergo either surgical ablation (ablation group) or no ablation (control group) during the mitral-valve operation. Patients in the ablation group underwent further randomization to pulmonary-vein isolation or a biatrial maze procedure. All patients underwent closure of the left atrial appendage. The primary end point was freedom from atrial fibrillation at both 6 months and 12 months (as assessed by means of 3-day Holter monitoring).ResultsMore patients in the ablation group than in the control group were free from atrial fibrillation at both 6 and 12 months (63.2% vs. 29.4%, P<0.001). There was no significant difference in the rate of freedom from atrial fibrillation between patients who underwent pulmonary-vein isolation and those who underwent the biatrial maze procedure (61.0% and 66.0%, respectively; P=0.60). One-year mortality was 6.8% in the ablation group and 8.7% in the control group (hazard ratio with ablation, 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.32 to 1.84; P=0.55). Ablation was associated with more implantations of a permanent pacemaker than was no ablation (21.5 vs. 8.1 per 100 patient-years, P=0.01). There were no significant between-group differences in major cardiac or cerebrovascular adverse events, overall serious adverse events, or hospital readmissions.ConclusionsThe addition of atrial fibrillation ablation to mitral-valve surgery significantly increased the rate of freedom from atrial fibrillation at 1 year among patients with persistent or long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation, but the risk of implantation of a permanent pacemaker was also increased. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00903370.).

Project description:BackgroundThe incidence of permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation is higher following mitral valve surgery (MVS) with ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) compared with MVS alone.ObjectivesThis study identified risk factors and outcomes associated with PPM implantation in a randomized trial that evaluated ablation for AF in patients who underwent MVS.MethodsA total of 243 patients with AF and without previous PPM placement were randomly assigned to MVS alone (n = 117) or MVS + ablation (n = 126). Patients in the ablation group were further randomized to pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) (n = 62) or the biatrial maze procedure (n = 64). Using competing risk models, this study examined the association among PPM and baseline and operative risk factors, and the effect of PPM on time to discharge, readmissions, and 1-year mortality.ResultsThirty-five patients received a PPM within the first year (14.4%), 29 (83%) underwent implantation during the index hospitalization. The frequency of PPM implantation was 7.7% in patients randomized to MVS alone, 16.1% in MVS + PVI, and 25% in MVS + biatrial maze. The indications for PPM were similar among patients who underwent MVS with and without ablation. Ablation, multivalve surgery, and New York Heart Association functional (NYHA) functional class III/IV were independent risk factors for PPM implantation. Length of stay post-surgery was longer in patients who received PPMs, but it was not significant when adjusted for randomization assignment (MVS vs. ablation) and age (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.61 to 1.08; p = 0.14). PPM implantation did not increase 30-day readmission rate (HR: 1.43; 95% CI: 0.50 to 4.05; p = 0.50). The need for PPM was associated with a higher risk of 1-year mortality (HR: 3.21; 95% CI: 1.01 to 10.17; p = 0.05) after adjustment for randomization assignment, age, and NYHA functional class.ConclusionsAF ablation, multivalve surgery, and NYHA functional class III/IV were associated with an increased risk for permanent pacing. PPM implantation following MVS was associated with a significant increase in 1-year mortality. (Surgical Ablation Versus No Surgical Ablation for Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Undergoing Mitral Valve Surgery; NCT00903370).

Project description:BackgroundAtrial fibrillation (AF) is a common tachyarrhythmia, affecting approximately 33 million people worldwide, and is frequently associated with mitral valve disease. Surgical ablation during mitral valve surgery provides an opportune circumstance for arrhythmia correction. The results of recent randomized trial data are promising, demonstrating both safety and efficacy. The aim of this systematic review is to report the efficacy and morbidity of concomitant surgical ablation for AF during mitral valve surgery.MethodsFive electronic databases were searched from inception to March 2023. All studies reporting the primary outcome, freedom from AF (FFAF), for patients with a history of AF undergoing concomitant mitral valve surgery were identified. Studies with patient cohorts less than 100 were excluded. Relevant data were extracted and a meta-analysis of proportions was conducted using a random-effects model. Survival data were pooled from original Kaplan-Meier curves and reconstructed, reporting aggregate FFAF and survival.ResultsThirty-six studies with a total of 8,340 patients were included in the systematic review. All 36 papers reported postoperative FFAF with a pooled result of 76.9% [95% confidence interval (CI): 73.8-79.9%] at a weighted mean follow-up of 40.2 months, however this result was associated with significant heterogeneity (I2=89%). A total of 31 studies reported postoperative short-term mortality, with a pooled result of 1.68% (95% CI: 1.15-2.29%). Aggregate survival at 1 to 5 years was 93.7%, 92.5%, 91.3%, 89.4%, and 87%, respectively, and aggregate FFAF for 1 to 5 years was 90.2%, 83.5%, 79.5%, 76.4% and 73.2%, respectively.ConclusionsEvaluation of the evidence suggests that concomitant ablation for AF during mitral valve surgery is both safe and efficacious. The results were associated with significant heterogeneity, reflective of variable institutional protocols, patient characteristics, and lesion sets. Randomized data with longer term follow-up would help validate these results.

Dataset Information

Barriers to atrial fibrillation ablation during mitral valve surgery.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Barriers to atrial fibrillation ablation during mitral valve surgery.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets