BACKGROUND: There are a few patients without detectable atrial contraction despite restoration of atrial rhythm after the maze procedure for atrial fibrillation (AF) associated with mitral valve disease. METHODS: From January 1995 to March 1997, 29 consecutive patients with AF associated with mitral valve disease underwent our modified maze procedure combined with mitral or other valve operations. The causes of mitral valve disease were rheumatic mitral stenosis (n = 22) and nonrheumatic mitral regurgitation (n = 7). The 17 patients with postoperative atrial rhythm were divided into group I with rheumatic mitral stenosis (n = 10), and group II with mitral regurgitation of nonrheumatic origins (n = 7). RESULTS: Seventeen patients regained atrial rhythm, 2 patients had junctional rhythm, and another 10 remained in AF. Between the group of patients with restoration of atrial rhythm and that of patients remaining in AF, significant differences were found in the percentage with rheumatic disease, history of AF, and maximum f-wave voltage. The postoperative peak velocity of the atrial filling wave to peak velocity of early filling wave ratio for the left atrium measured using Doppler echocardiography was 0.25 in group I, which was significantly lower than that (0.42) in group II. CONCLUSIONS: Reconsideration of the indications for the maze procedure for AF associated with rheumatic mitral stenosis may thus be reasonable, particularly for cases in which replacement using a prosthetic valve is necessary, but we believe that patients with nonrheumatic mitral valve disease, especially those able to undergo reconstructive operations, are the best candidates for the maze procedure.
BACKGROUND: There are a few patients without detectable atrial contraction despite restoration of atrial rhythm after the maze procedure for atrial fibrillation (AF) associated with mitral valve disease. METHODS: From January 1995 to March 1997, 29 consecutive patients with AF associated with mitral valve disease underwent our modified maze procedure combined with mitral or other valve operations. The causes of mitral valve disease were rheumatic mitral stenosis (n = 22) and nonrheumatic mitral regurgitation (n = 7). The 17 patients with postoperative atrial rhythm were divided into group I with rheumatic mitral stenosis (n = 10), and group II with mitral regurgitation of nonrheumatic origins (n = 7). RESULTS: Seventeen patients regained atrial rhythm, 2 patients had junctional rhythm, and another 10 remained in AF. Between the group of patients with restoration of atrial rhythm and that of patients remaining in AF, significant differences were found in the percentage with rheumatic disease, history of AF, and maximum f-wave voltage. The postoperative peak velocity of the atrial filling wave to peak velocity of early filling wave ratio for the left atrium measured using Doppler echocardiography was 0.25 in group I, which was significantly lower than that (0.42) in group II. CONCLUSIONS: Reconsideration of the indications for the maze procedure for AF associated with rheumatic mitral stenosis may thus be reasonable, particularly for cases in which replacement using a prosthetic valve is necessary, but we believe that patients with nonrheumatic mitral valve disease, especially those able to undergo reconstructive operations, are the best candidates for the maze procedure.