Safety and Efficacy of Biatrial vs. Left Atrial Surgical Ablation During Concomitant Cardiac Surgery: A Meta-Analysis of Clinical Studies With a Focus on the Causes of Pacemaker Implantation

Introduction: The latest STS guidelines recommend concomitant atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation not only during mitral surgery (Class IA) but also during other‐than mitral cardiac surgery procedures (Class IB) in patients with preoperative AF. Conventional Cox‐Maze III/IV procedures are performed on both atria (BA), but several studies reported excellent results with left atrial only (LA) ablations: the scope of this study is to compare the safety and efficacy of BA vs LA approach. Methods and Results: Pubmed, Scopus, and WOS were searched from inception to November 2018: 28 studies including 7065 patients and comparing the performance of BA vs LA approaches were identified: of these, 16 (57.1%) enrolled exclusively patients with non‐paroxysmal AF forms, 10 (35.7%) focused on mitral surgery as main procedure, and 16 (57.1%) regarded patients undergone Cox‐Maze with radiofrequency. The 6‐ and 12‐months prevalence of sinus rhythm were higher in the BA group (OR, 1.37, CI, 1.09‐1.73, P = .008 and OR, 1.37, CI, 0.99‐1.88, P = .05 respectively). Permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation (OR, 1.85, CI, 1.38‐2.49,P < .0001) and reopening for bleeding (OR, 1.70, CI, 1.05‐2.75, P = .03) were higher in the BA group. Among patients undergone PPM implantation, BA group had a significantly higher risk of sinoatrial node dysfunction (OR, 3.01, CI, 1.49‐6.07,P = .002). Conclusions: Concomitant BA ablation appears superior to LA ablation in terms of efficacy but is associated with a higher risk of bleeding and of PPM implantation, more frequently due to sinoatrial node dysfunction. LA approach should be preferable in patients with a higher risk of bleeding or with perioperative risk factors for PPM implantation.