Surgical treatment for isolated atrial fibrillation: Minimally invasive vs classic cut and sew maze

Richard Lee, Patrick M. McCarthy, Rod S. Passman, Jane Kruse, S. Chris Malaisrie, Edwin C. McGee, Brittany Lapin, Jason T. Jacobson, Jeffrey Goldberger, Bradley P. Knight

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

15 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: We sought to compare outcomes after two surgical approaches for the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF): a minimally invasive, staged hybrid approach combining surgery with catheter ablation, [Hybrid Maze (HM)] and the classic cut and sew Maze (CM). Methods: From April 2004 to March 2010, 63 stand-alone AF procedures were performed by two surgeons at a single center and followed up for ≥6 months. CM was offered to all patients. After July 2007, patients were also prospectively offered a two-stage HM: stage 1 = a beating heart bipolar radiofrequency pulmonary vein isolation and left atrial appendage ligation; stage 2 = transvenous catheter ablation connecting the pulmonary veins to each other and the mitral annulus when AF was present after stage 1. Outcomes were compared between 25 HM and 38 CM using χ 2 or Fisher exact test analysis. Results: Postoperatively, there was no difference in 30-day mortality (0%), complications (4% HM vs 18% CM), or median length of stay (5 days). At last follow-up, 88% of HM and 95% of CM were free from AF; 80% of HM and 90% of CM were free from AF and antiarrhythmic medication (P ≥ 0.3). Twenty-nine percent of HM required a subsequent catheter ablation (stage 2) when compared with 8% of the CM patients (P = 0.04). Freedom from AF and antiarrhythmic medication at 1 year was 52% for the HM and 87.5% for the CM (P = 0.004). Conclusions: In AF patients reluctant to undergo a CM but willing to undergo subsequent catheter ablation, a minimally invasive approach is a reasonable strategy. Because pulmonary vein isolation alone may be sufficient in two-thirds of patients and delayed reconnection is common, an interval two-stage hybrid approach may prove preferable over a one-stage combined hybrid approach; however, successful sinus restoration may take longer with this approach.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)373-377
Number of pages5
JournalInnovations: Technology and Techniques in Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery
Volume6
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 1 2011
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Atrial Fibrillation
Catheter Ablation
Pulmonary Veins
Therapeutics
Atrial Appendage
Ligation
Length of Stay
Mortality

Keywords

  • Arrhythmia
  • Atrial fibrillation
  • Hybrid
  • Maze procedure
  • Minimally invasive

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine
  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Surgical treatment for isolated atrial fibrillation : Minimally invasive vs classic cut and sew maze. / Lee, Richard; McCarthy, Patrick M.; Passman, Rod S.; Kruse, Jane; Malaisrie, S. Chris; McGee, Edwin C.; Lapin, Brittany; Jacobson, Jason T.; Goldberger, Jeffrey; Knight, Bradley P.

In: Innovations: Technology and Techniques in Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery, Vol. 6, No. 6, 01.11.2011, p. 373-377.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Lee, R, McCarthy, PM, Passman, RS, Kruse, J, Malaisrie, SC, McGee, EC, Lapin, B, Jacobson, JT, Goldberger, J & Knight, BP 2011, 'Surgical treatment for isolated atrial fibrillation: Minimally invasive vs classic cut and sew maze', Innovations: Technology and Techniques in Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery, vol. 6, no. 6, pp. 373-377. https://doi.org/10.1097/IMI.0b013e318248f3f4
Lee, Richard ; McCarthy, Patrick M. ; Passman, Rod S. ; Kruse, Jane ; Malaisrie, S. Chris ; McGee, Edwin C. ; Lapin, Brittany ; Jacobson, Jason T. ; Goldberger, Jeffrey ; Knight, Bradley P. / Surgical treatment for isolated atrial fibrillation : Minimally invasive vs classic cut and sew maze. In: Innovations: Technology and Techniques in Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery. 2011 ; Vol. 6, No. 6. pp. 373-377.
@article{f6b7e2d7ebd24645a6c4842854867416,
title = "Surgical treatment for isolated atrial fibrillation: Minimally invasive vs classic cut and sew maze",
abstract = "Objective: We sought to compare outcomes after two surgical approaches for the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF): a minimally invasive, staged hybrid approach combining surgery with catheter ablation, [Hybrid Maze (HM)] and the classic cut and sew Maze (CM). Methods: From April 2004 to March 2010, 63 stand-alone AF procedures were performed by two surgeons at a single center and followed up for ≥6 months. CM was offered to all patients. After July 2007, patients were also prospectively offered a two-stage HM: stage 1 = a beating heart bipolar radiofrequency pulmonary vein isolation and left atrial appendage ligation; stage 2 = transvenous catheter ablation connecting the pulmonary veins to each other and the mitral annulus when AF was present after stage 1. Outcomes were compared between 25 HM and 38 CM using χ 2 or Fisher exact test analysis. Results: Postoperatively, there was no difference in 30-day mortality (0{\%}), complications (4{\%} HM vs 18{\%} CM), or median length of stay (5 days). At last follow-up, 88{\%} of HM and 95{\%} of CM were free from AF; 80{\%} of HM and 90{\%} of CM were free from AF and antiarrhythmic medication (P ≥ 0.3). Twenty-nine percent of HM required a subsequent catheter ablation (stage 2) when compared with 8{\%} of the CM patients (P = 0.04). Freedom from AF and antiarrhythmic medication at 1 year was 52{\%} for the HM and 87.5{\%} for the CM (P = 0.004). Conclusions: In AF patients reluctant to undergo a CM but willing to undergo subsequent catheter ablation, a minimally invasive approach is a reasonable strategy. Because pulmonary vein isolation alone may be sufficient in two-thirds of patients and delayed reconnection is common, an interval two-stage hybrid approach may prove preferable over a one-stage combined hybrid approach; however, successful sinus restoration may take longer with this approach.",
keywords = "Arrhythmia, Atrial fibrillation, Hybrid, Maze procedure, Minimally invasive",
author = "Richard Lee and McCarthy, {Patrick M.} and Passman, {Rod S.} and Jane Kruse and Malaisrie, {S. Chris} and McGee, {Edwin C.} and Brittany Lapin and Jacobson, {Jason T.} and Jeffrey Goldberger and Knight, {Bradley P.}",
year = "2011",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/IMI.0b013e318248f3f4",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "6",
pages = "373--377",
journal = "Innovations: Technology and Techniques in Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery",
issn = "1556-9845",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Surgical treatment for isolated atrial fibrillation

T2 - Minimally invasive vs classic cut and sew maze

AU - Lee, Richard

AU - McCarthy, Patrick M.

AU - Passman, Rod S.

AU - Kruse, Jane

AU - Malaisrie, S. Chris

AU - McGee, Edwin C.

AU - Lapin, Brittany

AU - Jacobson, Jason T.

AU - Goldberger, Jeffrey

AU - Knight, Bradley P.

PY - 2011/11/1

Y1 - 2011/11/1

N2 - Objective: We sought to compare outcomes after two surgical approaches for the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF): a minimally invasive, staged hybrid approach combining surgery with catheter ablation, [Hybrid Maze (HM)] and the classic cut and sew Maze (CM). Methods: From April 2004 to March 2010, 63 stand-alone AF procedures were performed by two surgeons at a single center and followed up for ≥6 months. CM was offered to all patients. After July 2007, patients were also prospectively offered a two-stage HM: stage 1 = a beating heart bipolar radiofrequency pulmonary vein isolation and left atrial appendage ligation; stage 2 = transvenous catheter ablation connecting the pulmonary veins to each other and the mitral annulus when AF was present after stage 1. Outcomes were compared between 25 HM and 38 CM using χ 2 or Fisher exact test analysis. Results: Postoperatively, there was no difference in 30-day mortality (0%), complications (4% HM vs 18% CM), or median length of stay (5 days). At last follow-up, 88% of HM and 95% of CM were free from AF; 80% of HM and 90% of CM were free from AF and antiarrhythmic medication (P ≥ 0.3). Twenty-nine percent of HM required a subsequent catheter ablation (stage 2) when compared with 8% of the CM patients (P = 0.04). Freedom from AF and antiarrhythmic medication at 1 year was 52% for the HM and 87.5% for the CM (P = 0.004). Conclusions: In AF patients reluctant to undergo a CM but willing to undergo subsequent catheter ablation, a minimally invasive approach is a reasonable strategy. Because pulmonary vein isolation alone may be sufficient in two-thirds of patients and delayed reconnection is common, an interval two-stage hybrid approach may prove preferable over a one-stage combined hybrid approach; however, successful sinus restoration may take longer with this approach.

AB - Objective: We sought to compare outcomes after two surgical approaches for the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF): a minimally invasive, staged hybrid approach combining surgery with catheter ablation, [Hybrid Maze (HM)] and the classic cut and sew Maze (CM). Methods: From April 2004 to March 2010, 63 stand-alone AF procedures were performed by two surgeons at a single center and followed up for ≥6 months. CM was offered to all patients. After July 2007, patients were also prospectively offered a two-stage HM: stage 1 = a beating heart bipolar radiofrequency pulmonary vein isolation and left atrial appendage ligation; stage 2 = transvenous catheter ablation connecting the pulmonary veins to each other and the mitral annulus when AF was present after stage 1. Outcomes were compared between 25 HM and 38 CM using χ 2 or Fisher exact test analysis. Results: Postoperatively, there was no difference in 30-day mortality (0%), complications (4% HM vs 18% CM), or median length of stay (5 days). At last follow-up, 88% of HM and 95% of CM were free from AF; 80% of HM and 90% of CM were free from AF and antiarrhythmic medication (P ≥ 0.3). Twenty-nine percent of HM required a subsequent catheter ablation (stage 2) when compared with 8% of the CM patients (P = 0.04). Freedom from AF and antiarrhythmic medication at 1 year was 52% for the HM and 87.5% for the CM (P = 0.004). Conclusions: In AF patients reluctant to undergo a CM but willing to undergo subsequent catheter ablation, a minimally invasive approach is a reasonable strategy. Because pulmonary vein isolation alone may be sufficient in two-thirds of patients and delayed reconnection is common, an interval two-stage hybrid approach may prove preferable over a one-stage combined hybrid approach; however, successful sinus restoration may take longer with this approach.

KW - Arrhythmia

KW - Atrial fibrillation

KW - Hybrid

KW - Maze procedure

KW - Minimally invasive

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84857858639&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84857858639&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/IMI.0b013e318248f3f4

DO - 10.1097/IMI.0b013e318248f3f4

M3 - Article

C2 - 22436772

AN - SCOPUS:84857858639

VL - 6

SP - 373

EP - 377

JO - Innovations: Technology and Techniques in Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery

JF - Innovations: Technology and Techniques in Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery

SN - 1556-9845

IS - 6

ER -