4.1 Review

Does Anterior Fat Pad Removal Reduce the Incidence of Atrial Fibrillation after CABG? A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Journal

PACE-PACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY
Volume 38, Issue 11, Pages 1363-1368

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/pace.12740

Keywords

atrial fibrillation; anterior fat pad; coronary artery bypass grafting

Funding

  1. Natural Science Foundation of Zhejiang Province, China [Y2111051]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BackgroundAtrial fibrillation (AF) is a common complication after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Several prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have evaluated the effect of intact and removed anterior fat pads on the incidence of AF after CABG with conflicting results. We collected these RCTs and conducted a meta-analysis to determine whether anterior fat pad removal is effective in preventing the new onset of AF after CABG. Methods and ResultsProspective RCTs were collected for analysis and the main outcomes include the occurrence of AF after CABG, total hospital stay, and major complications. Statistical analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.0.18 software (The Cochrane Collaboration), and pooled estimates of the effect were reported as risk ratios (RRs) or mean differences (MDs) with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The results of this meta-analysis indicate that anterior fat pad removal was not associated with a decreased risk of occurrence of AF after CABG (RR = 1.34, 95% CI: 0.88-2.03; P = 0.18), and it also did not increase the risk of major complications (RR = 1.05, 95% CI: 0.75-1.47; P = 0.79) or lengthen total hospital stay (MD = 0.06, 95% CI: -0.46 to 0.58; P = 0.83) compared with the control group. ConclusionAnterior fat pad removal did not decrease the risk of the occurrence of AF after CABG despite its safety and convenience, and it should not be used to prevent new-onset AF after CABG unless new evidence is provided.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available