Efficiency and safety of ablation procedure for the treatment of atrial fibrillation in valve surgery: A PRISMA-compliant cumulative systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Background: Atrial fibrillation is the main complication of patients who suffer from valvular heart disease (VHD), which may lead to an increased susceptibility to ventricular tachycardia, atrial dysfunction, heart failure, and stroke. Therefore, seeking a safe and effective therapy is crucial in prolonging the lives of patients with VHD and improving their quality of life.

Methods: Our target database included PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library, from which published articles were retrieved from inception to June 2020. We retrieved all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared patients undergoing valve surgery with (VSA) or without ablation (VS) procedure. Studies to be included were screened and data extraction was performed independently by 2 investigators. The Cochrane risk-of-bias table was used to evaluate the methodological quality of the included RCTs. The mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) and relative risk (RR) ratio was calculated to analyze the data. Heterogeneity was evaluated using I2 and chi-square tests. Egger test and the trim and fill analysis were used to further determine publication bias.

Results: Fourteen RCTs that included 1376 patients were eventually selected for this meta-analysis. Surgical ablation was found to be effective in restoring sinus rhythm in valvular surgery patients at discharge (RR 2.91, 95% CI [1.17, 7.20], I2 97%, P = .02), 3 to 6 months (RR 2.85, 95% CI [2.27, 3.58], I2 49%, P < .00001), 12 months, and more than 1 year after surgery (RR 3.54, 95% CI [2.78, 4.51], I2 27%, P < .00001). All-cause mortality (RR 0.98, 95% CI [0.64, 1.51], I2 0%, P = .94) and stroke (RR 1.29, 95% CI [0.70, 2.39], I2 0%, P = .57) were similar in the VSA and VS groups. Compared with VS, VSA prolonged cardiopulmonary bypass time (MD 30.44, 95% CI [17.55, 43.33], I2 88%, P < .00001) and aortic cross-clamping time (MD 19.57, 95% CI [11.10, 28.03], I2 89%, P < .00001). No significant differences were found between groups with respect to the risk of bleeding (RR 0.64, 95% CI [0.37, 1.12], I2 0%, P = .12), heart failure (RR 1.11, 95% CI [0.63, 1.93], I2 0%, P = .72), and low cardiac output syndrome (RR 1.41, 95% CI [0.57, 3.46], I2 18%, P = .46). However, the demand for implantation of a permanent pacemaker was significantly higher in the VSA group (RR 1.84, 95% CI [1.15, 2.95], I2 0%, P = .01).

Conclusion: Although we found high heterogeneity in the restoration of sinus rhythm at discharge, we assume that the comparison is valid at this time, given the current state in the operating room. This study provides evidence of the efficacy and security of concomitant ablation intervention for patients with VHD and atrial fibrillation. Surgical ablation would increase the safety of implantation of a permanent pacemaker in the population that underwent valve surgery.