4.6 Article

Mapping and Ablation of Autonomic Ganglia in Prevention of Postoperative Atrial Fibrillation in Coronary Surgery: MAAPPAFS Atrial Fibrillation Randomized Controlled Pilot Study

期刊

CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
卷 30, 期 10, 页码 1202-1207

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.cjca.2014.04.018

关键词

-

资金

  1. University of Ottawa Heart Institute

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) remains common after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Limited efforts to intervene on cardiac autonomic ganglionic plexi (AGP) during surgery show mixed results. In this pilot study, we evaluated the safety and feasibility of map-guided ablation of AGPs during isolated CABG in the prevention of POAF. Methods: In this pilot study, patients undergoing isolated CABG were randomized into an intervention group (mapping and ablation of AGP [AGP+] group), and a control group (no mapping and ablation [AGP-] group). Using high-frequency stimulation, active AGPs were identified and ablated intraoperatively using radiofrequency. Continuous rhythm monitoring, serum electrolytes, postoperative medications, and postoperative complications were recorded until discharge. Results: Randomization of 47 patients (24 AGP+ and 23 AGP-) resulted in similar baseline characteristics, past medical history, and preoperative medication use. The intervention added a median of 14 minutes to the operative time. The incidence of POAF, mean time in POAF, and median length of stay in hospital were: AGP+ 21% vs AGP- 30%; AGP+ 298 minutes vs AGP- 514 minutes; AGP+ 5 days vs AGP- 6 days; respectively). Postoperative complications, medication use, and daily serum electrolyte profiles were similar in both groups. Conclusions: This pilot study demonstrated the safety and feasibility of mapping and ablation of AGP during CABG with minimal added operative time. Results further suggest a potentially clinically significant effect on POAF. A multicentre trial is warranted.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据