Hyun Jung Kim1, Jin Suk Kim2, Tae Sik Kim3. 1. Department of Preventive Medicine, College of Medicine, Korea University, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 2. Department of Cardiology, Ansan Hospital, Korea University Medical Center, Ansan, Republic of Korea. 3. Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Anam Hospital, Korea University Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea kmdphd@gmail.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: In the treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), the efficacy and safety of epicardial thoracoscopic ablation (TA) versus endocardial catheter ablation (CA) using radiofrequency energy remains unclear. This meta-analysis was performed to assess the efficacy and safety of each ablation technique using a pooled comparative analysis. METHODS: Studies comparing the efficacy and safety of TA and CA were identified by searching electronic databases. Those that reported patients' freedom from atrial arrhythmia and significant side effects were included. RESULTS: Three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and two retrospective cohort studies with a total of 587 patients were included in the meta-analysis (273 patients underwent TA and 314 patients underwent CA). The proportion of patients who were free of atrial arrhythmia without antiarrhythmic drugs during 12 months of follow-up was significantly higher after TA than after CA in the RCTs [P < 0.001; relative risk (RR), 1.77; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.34-2.32] and in the retrospective cohort studies (P = 0.010; RR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.12-2.51). The incidence of significant side effects during the post-procedural period was significantly higher in the TA group than in the CA group in both the RCT (P = 0.007; RR, 7.23; 95% CI, 1.71-30.49) and the retrospective cohort studies (P = 0.020; RR, 4.39; 95% CI, 1.33-14.46). CONCLUSIONS: Based on the available data, TA was found to be more effective than CA in achieving freedom from atrial arrhythmia; however, TA had a higher rate of immediate post-procedural complications than CA.
OBJECTIVES: In the treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), the efficacy and safety of epicardial thoracoscopic ablation (TA) versus endocardial catheter ablation (CA) using radiofrequency energy remains unclear. This meta-analysis was performed to assess the efficacy and safety of each ablation technique using a pooled comparative analysis. METHODS: Studies comparing the efficacy and safety of TA and CA were identified by searching electronic databases. Those that reported patients' freedom from atrial arrhythmia and significant side effects were included. RESULTS: Three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and two retrospective cohort studies with a total of 587 patients were included in the meta-analysis (273 patients underwent TA and 314 patients underwent CA). The proportion of patients who were free of atrial arrhythmia without antiarrhythmic drugs during 12 months of follow-up was significantly higher after TA than after CA in the RCTs [P < 0.001; relative risk (RR), 1.77; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.34-2.32] and in the retrospective cohort studies (P = 0.010; RR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.12-2.51). The incidence of significant side effects during the post-procedural period was significantly higher in the TA group than in the CA group in both the RCT (P = 0.007; RR, 7.23; 95% CI, 1.71-30.49) and the retrospective cohort studies (P = 0.020; RR, 4.39; 95% CI, 1.33-14.46). CONCLUSIONS: Based on the available data, TA was found to be more effective than CA in achieving freedom from atrial arrhythmia; however, TA had a higher rate of immediate post-procedural complications than CA.
Authors: Sébastien P J Krul; Antoine H G Driessen; Aeilko H Zwinderman; Wim J van Boven; Arthur A M Wilde; Jacques M T de Bakker; Joris R de Groot Journal: Int J Cardiol Date: 2011-11-09 Impact factor: 4.164
Authors: Randall K Wolf; E William Schneeberger; Robert Osterday; Doug Miller; Walter Merrill; John B Flege; A Marc Gillinov Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: James R Edgerton; William T Brinkman; Tara Weaver; Syma L Prince; Daniel Culica; Morley A Herbert; Michael J Mack Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2010-03-17 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Evgeny Pokushalov; Alexander Romanov; Dmitry Elesin; Alexander Bogachev-Prokophiev; Denis Losik; Sevda Bairamova; Alexander Karaskov; Jonathan S Steinberg Journal: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol Date: 2013-09-09
Authors: Frederick T Han; Vigneshwar Kasirajan; Marcin Kowalski; Robert Kiser; Luke Wolfe; Gautham Kalahasty; Richard K Shepard; Mark A Wood; Kenneth A Ellenbogen Journal: Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol Date: 2009-06-02
Authors: Claudia A J van der Heijden; Patrique Segers; Anna Masud; Vanessa Weberndörfer; Sevasti-Marisevi Chaldoupi; Justin G L M Luermans; Geertruida P Bijvoet; Bas L J H Kietselaer; Sander M J van Kuijk; Paul J C Barenbrug; Jos G Maessen; Elham Bidar; Bart Maesen Journal: Eur J Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2022-10-04 Impact factor: 4.534