Subgroup analysis demonstrated similar trends , with higher freedom from AF in the surgical ablation group for paroxysmal AF patients .
The incidence of pacemaker implantation was higher , while no difference in stroke or cardiac tamponade was demonstrated for the surgical versus catheter ablation groups .
Current evidence suggests that epicardial ablative strategies are associated with higher freedom from AF , higher pacemaker implantation rates and comparable neurological complications and cardiac tamponade incidence to catheter ablative treatment .
BACKGROUND Atrial fibrillation ( AF ) is an increasingly prevalent condition in the ageing population , with significantly associated morbidity and mortality .
Surgical and catheter ablative strategies both aim to reduce mortality and morbidity through freedom from AF .
This review consoli date s all currently available comparative data to evaluate these two interventions .
Atrial Fibrillation Catheter Ablation Versus Surgical Ablation Treatment (FAST): A 2-Center Randomized Clinical Trial
Background — Catheter ablation ( CA ) and minimally invasive surgical ablation ( SA ) have become accepted therapy for antiarrhythmic drug – refractory atrial fibrillation . This study describes the first r and omized clinical trial comparing their efficacy and safety during a 12-month follow-up . Methods and Results — One hundred twenty-four patients with antiarrhythmic drug – refractory atrial fibrillation with left atrial dilatation and hypertension ( 42 patients , 33 % ) or failed prior CA ( 82 patients , 67 % ) were r and omized to CA ( 63 patients ) or SA ( 61 patients ) . CA consisted of linear antral pulmonary vein isolation and optional additional lines . SA consisted of bipolar radiofrequency isolation of the bilateral pulmonary vein , ganglionated plexi ablation , and left atrial appendage excision with optional additional lines . Follow-up at 6 and 12 months was performed by ECG and 7-day Holter recording . The primary end point , freedom from left atrial arrhythmia > 30 seconds without antiarrhythmic drugs after 12 months , was 36.5 % for CA and 65.6 % for SA ( P=0.0022 ) . There was no difference in effect for subgroups , which was consistent at both sites . The primary safety end point of significant adverse events during the 12-month follow-up was significantly higher for SA than for CA ( n=21 [ 34.4 % ] versus n=10 [ 15.9 % ] ; P=0.027 ) , driven mainly by procedural complications such as pneumothorax , major bleeding , and the need for pacemaker . In the CA group , 1 patient died at 1 month of subarachnoid hemorrhage . Conclusion — In atrial fibrillation patients with dilated left atrium and hypertension or failed prior atrial fibrillation CA , SA is superior to CA in achieving freedom from left atrial arrhythmias after 12 months of follow-up , although the procedural adverse event rate is significantly higher for SA than for CA . Clinical Trial Registration — URL : http:// clinical trials.gov . Unique identifier : NCT00662701
Subgroup analysis demonstrated similar trends , with higher freedom from AF in the surgical ablation group for paroxysmal AF patients .
The incidence of pacemaker implantation was higher , while no difference in stroke or cardiac tamponade was demonstrated for the surgical versus catheter ablation groups .
Current evidence suggests that epicardial ablative strategies are associated with higher freedom from AF , higher pacemaker implantation rates and comparable neurological complications and cardiac tamponade incidence to catheter ablative treatment .
BACKGROUND Atrial fibrillation ( AF ) is an increasingly prevalent condition in the ageing population , with significantly associated morbidity and mortality .
Surgical and catheter ablative strategies both aim to reduce mortality and morbidity through freedom from AF .
This review consoli date s all currently available comparative data to evaluate these two interventions .