Abstract
Aim To compare the incidence of a permanent pacemaker (PP) implantation based on the chosen treatment technology (biatrial ablation, BA, or left atrial ablation (LAA) for long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) with simultaneous coronary bypass (CB).Material and methods The study included 116 patients with long-standing persistent AF and indications for CB. Patients were randomized to two equal groups (58 patients in each). Group 1 underwent BA in combination with CB; group 2 patients underwent isolated LAA with simultaneous CB under the conditions of artificial circulation. Incidence of PP implantation was assessed during the early (to 30 days) and late (to 60 months) postoperative periods.Results For the observation period, a total of 9 PPs was implanted in both groups, 6 in the BA group and 3 in the LAA group (odds ratio, OR, 0.5; 95 % confidence interval, CI, 0.1-2.4; р=0.490). During the early postoperative period, 5 patients in the BA group and 2 patients in the LAA group were implanted with PP (OR, 0.4; 95 % CI. 0-2.5; р=0.438). During the late postoperative period, one (2%) patient of the BA group was implanted with a permanent PP at 30 months of follow-up due to the development of sick sinus syndrome (SSS); also, one (2%) patient of the LAA group required PP implantation at 54 months of follow-up due to the development of SSS. The causes for PP implantation in the BA group included the development of complete atrioventricular (AV) block in 9 % of cases (95 % CI, 4-19 %); sinus node dysfunction and junctional rhythm in 2 % of cases (95 % CI, 0-9 %). Compared to this group, the LAA group showed a statistically significant difference in the incidence of AV block (0 cases, р=0.047). The major cause for PP implantation in the LAA group was the development of sinus node dysfunction in 3 (5 %) patients (95 % CI, 2-14 %).Conclusion The use of BA in surgical treatment of long-standing persistent AF with simultaneous myocardial revascularization is associated with a high risk of AV block, which requires permanent PP implantation in the postoperative period. Total incidence of permanent PP implantation for dysfunction of the cardiac conduction system following the combination surgical treatment of long-standing persistent AF and IHD, either CB and LAA or BA, did not differ between the treatment groups both in early and late postoperative periods.
Highlights
Сравнить частоту имплантации постоянного электрокардиостимулятора (ЭКС) в зависимости от выбранной технологии лечения длительно персистирующей фибрилляции предсердий (ФП) с одномоментным аортоко‐ ронарным шунтированием (АКШ)
Comparative characteristics of a pacemaker implantation after biatrial or left atrial ablation of atrial fibrillation in combination with coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with ischemic heart disease and long-standing per‐ sistent atrial fibrillation
Cappabianca G, Ferrarese S, Tutino C, Corazzari C, Matteucci M, Man‐ tovani V et al Safety and efficacy of biatrial vs left atrial surgical ablation dur‐ ing concomitant cardiac surgery: A meta‐analysis of clinical studies with a fo‐ cus on the causes of pacemaker implantation
Summary
Сравнить частоту имплантации постоянного электрокардиостимулятора (ЭКС) в зависимости от выбранной технологии лечения (биатриальная абляция – БА или левопредсердная абляция – ЛПА) длительно персистирующей фибрилляции предсердий (ФП) с одномоментным аортоко‐ ронарным шунтированием (АКШ). Общая частота имплантаций постоянных ЭКС, вследствие развития дисфункции проводящей системы сердца после сочетанного хирургического лечения длительно персистирующей фор‐ мы ФП и ИБС, в объеме АКШ и ЛПА или БА не различалась в обеих группах как в раннем, так и в позднем послеоперационных периодах. Какой вид хирургического лечения следует предпочесть у пациентов с длительно персистирующей ФП и показаниями к аортокоронарному шунтированию (АКШ) во избежание развития одного из осложнений – нарушений в проводящей системе сердца, требующих постоянного ЭКС в последующем. Цель Сравнение частоты имплантации постоянного ЭКС в зависимости от выбранной технологии лечения (БА или ЛПА) длительно персистирующей ФП с одномоментным АКШ. Оценка количества имплантаций ЭКС производилась в раннем (до 30 дней) и позднем (до 60 мес) послеоперационном периодах (рис. 1)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.