Literature DB >> 22115221

Incidence and predictors of pacemaker placement after surgical ablation for atrial fibrillation.

Berhane Worku1, Sang-Woo Pak, Faisal Cheema, Mark Russo, Brian Housman, Danielle Van Patten, Jessica Harris, Michael Argenziano.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Bradyarrhythmia requiring pacemaker placement is a relatively common complication after surgical ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF). We report our experience with surgical ablation procedures using various energy modalities and lesion sets in an attempt to identify the risk factors associated with postoperative pacemaker requirement.
METHODS: Intraoperative data were collected prospectively, and preoperative and postoperative data were collected retrospectively. Energy modality and lesion sets used were dependent on availability on the date of the procedure and surgeon preference.
RESULTS: From October 1999 to October 2009, 701 patients underwent surgical ablation for AF at our institution. Forty-five patients (7.6%) required early postoperative pacemaker placement. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics or associated procedures between patients who required pacemaker placement and those who did not. Ninety-day mortality was greater in patients requiring pacemaker placement (15.6% versus 6.6%; p = 0.025). In multivariable analysis, a pacemaker requirement was more likely with the use of microwave energy (odds ratio [OR] 2.87; confidence interval [CI], 1.41 to 5.84; p = 0.004) and a right atrial lesion set (OR, 2.82; CI, 1.07 to 7.45; p = 0.036).
CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, over our 10-year experience with surgical AF ablations, the incidence of pacemaker requirement was much lower than that reported in series of classic "cut and sew" Maze procedures, even among patients undergoing full biatrial ablations. Although biatrial ablation is currently our favored approach to patients with long-standing or persistent AF, right atrial lesion sets increase the risk of this complication and should be used judiciously.
Copyright © 2011 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22115221     DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2011.07.058

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg        ISSN: 0003-4975            Impact factor:   4.330


  10 in total

1.  Implantable loop recorder monitoring after concomitant surgical ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF): insights from more than 200 continuously monitored patients.

Authors:  Simon Pecha; Muhammet Ali Aydin; Teymour Ahmadzade; Friederike Hartel; Boris Hoffmann; Daniel Steven; Stephan Willems; Hermann Reichenspurner; Florian Mathias Wagner
Journal:  Heart Vessels       Date:  2015-08-29       Impact factor: 2.037

2.  Pacemaker Implantation After Mitral Valve Surgery With Atrial Fibrillation Ablation.

Authors:  Joseph J DeRose; Donna M Mancini; Helena L Chang; Michael Argenziano; François Dagenais; Gorav Ailawadi; Louis P Perrault; Michael K Parides; Wendy C Taddei-Peters; Michael J Mack; Donald D Glower; Babatunde A Yerokun; Pavan Atluri; John C Mullen; John D Puskas; Karen O'Sullivan; Nancy M Sledz; Hugo Tremblay; Ellen Moquete; Bart S Ferket; Alan J Moskowitz; Alexander Iribarne; Annetine C Gelijns; Patrick T O'Gara; Eugene H Blackstone; A Marc Gillinov
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2019-05-21       Impact factor: 24.094

3.  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.

Authors:  Lori K Soni; Sophia R Cedola; Jacob Cogan; Jeffrey Jiang; Jonathan Yang; Hiroo Takayama; Michael Argenziano
Journal:  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 5.209

4.  Predictors of the need for pacemaker implantation after the Cox maze IV procedure for atrial fibrillation.

Authors:  Naoki Masaki; Shunsuke Kawamoto; Naotaka Motoyoshi; Osamu Adachi; Kiichiro Kumagai; Satoshi Kawatsu; Yukihiro Hayatsu; Shintaro Katahira; Katsuhiro Hosoyama; Masatoshi Akiyama; Yoshikatsu Saiki
Journal:  Surg Today       Date:  2017-12-16       Impact factor: 2.549

5.  Predictors and risk of pacemaker implantation after the Cox-maze IV procedure.

Authors:  Jason O Robertson; Phillip S Cuculich; Lindsey L Saint; Richard B Schuessler; Marc R Moon; Jennifer Lawton; Ralph J Damiano; Hersh S Maniar
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  2013-04-30       Impact factor: 4.330

6.  Which Method to Use for Surgical Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation Performed Concomitantly with Mitral Valve Surgery: Radiofrequency Ablation versus Cryoablation.

Authors:  Ünsal Vural; Ahmet Yavuz Balcı; Ahmet Arif Ağlar; Mehmet Kızılay
Journal:  Braz J Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2018 Nov-Dec

7.  Long-term results of monopolar versus bipolar radiofrequency ablation procedure for atrial fibrillation.

Authors:  Mehmet Ezelsoy; Kerem Oral; Barış Çaynak; Kemal Tolga Saraçoğlu; Ayten Saraçoğlu; Zehra Bayramoğlu; Belhhan Akpınar
Journal:  Turk Gogus Kalp Damar Cerrahisi Derg       Date:  2019-04-24       Impact factor: 0.332

8.  Ascending aortic aneurysm repair and surgical ablation for atrial fibrillation.

Authors:  Berhane Worku; Iosif Gulkarov; Charles A Mack; Leonard N Girardi; Arash Salemi
Journal:  J Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2015-11-26       Impact factor: 1.637

9.  Sinus node dysfunction after surgical atrial fibrillation ablation with concomitant mitral valve surgery: Determinants and clinical outcomes.

Authors:  Darae Kim; Chi Young Shim; Geu-Ru Hong; In Jeong Cho; Seung Hyun Lee; Hyuk-Jae Chang; Sak Lee; Jong-Won Ha; Byung-Chul Chang
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-09-12       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Sick Sinus Syndrome After the Maze Procedure Performed Concomitantly With Mitral Valve Surgery.

Authors:  Min Soo Cho; Ran Heo; Xin Jin; Jung-Bok Lee; Sahmin Lee; Dae-Hee Kim; Joon Bum Kim; Jun Kim; Sung-Ho Jung; Suk Jung Choo; Jong-Min Song; Gi-Byoung Nam; Kee-Joon Choi; Duk-Hyun Kang; Cheol Hyun Chung; Jae Won Lee; You-Ho Kim; Jae-Kwan Song
Journal:  J Am Heart Assoc       Date:  2018-10-02       Impact factor: 5.501

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.