Epicardial thoracoscopic ablation versus endocardial catheter ablation for management of atrial fibrillation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Hyun Jung Kim, Jin-Seok Kim, Tae Sik Kim

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

OBJECTIVES In the treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), the efficacy and safety of epicardial thoracoscopic ablation (TA) versus endocardial catheter ablation (CA) using radiofrequency energy remains unclear. This meta-analysis was performed to assess the efficacy and safety of each ablation technique using a pooled comparative analysis. METHODS Studies comparing the efficacy and safety of TA and CA were identified by searching electronic databases. Those that reported patients' freedom from atrial arrhythmia and significant side effects were included. RESULTS Three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and two retrospective cohort studies with a total of 587 patients were included in the meta-analysis (273 patients underwent TA and 314 patients underwent CA). The proportion of patients who were free of atrial arrhythmia without antiarrhythmic drugs during 12 months of follow-up was significantly higher after TA than after CA in the RCTs [P < 0.001; relative risk (RR), 1.77; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.34-2.32] and in the retrospective cohort studies (P = 0.010; RR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.12-2.51). The incidence of significant side effects during the post-procedural period was significantly higher in the TA group than in the CA group in both the RCT (P = 0.007; RR, 7.23; 95% CI, 1.71-30.49) and the retrospective cohort studies (P = 0.020; RR, 4.39; 95% CI, 1.33-14.46). CONCLUSIONS Based on the available data, TA was found to be more effective than CA in achieving freedom from atrial arrhythmia; however, TA had a higher rate of immediate post-procedural complications than CA.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)729-737
Number of pages9
JournalInteractive Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery
Volume22
Issue number6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2016 Jun 25

Fingerprint

Catheter Ablation
Atrial Fibrillation
Meta-Analysis
Confidence Intervals
Cardiac Arrhythmias
Cohort Studies
Randomized Controlled Trials
Retrospective Studies
Safety
Ablation Techniques
Anti-Arrhythmia Agents
Databases
Incidence

Keywords

  • Atrial fibrillation
  • Catheter ablation
  • Meta-analysis
  • Thoracoscopy

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine
  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

@article{23dd34308f4b4c98bb940dab9ca623dc,
title = "Epicardial thoracoscopic ablation versus endocardial catheter ablation for management of atrial fibrillation: A systematic review and meta-analysis",
abstract = "OBJECTIVES In the treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), the efficacy and safety of epicardial thoracoscopic ablation (TA) versus endocardial catheter ablation (CA) using radiofrequency energy remains unclear. This meta-analysis was performed to assess the efficacy and safety of each ablation technique using a pooled comparative analysis. METHODS Studies comparing the efficacy and safety of TA and CA were identified by searching electronic databases. Those that reported patients' freedom from atrial arrhythmia and significant side effects were included. RESULTS Three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and two retrospective cohort studies with a total of 587 patients were included in the meta-analysis (273 patients underwent TA and 314 patients underwent CA). The proportion of patients who were free of atrial arrhythmia without antiarrhythmic drugs during 12 months of follow-up was significantly higher after TA than after CA in the RCTs [P < 0.001; relative risk (RR), 1.77; 95{\%} confidence interval (CI), 1.34-2.32] and in the retrospective cohort studies (P = 0.010; RR, 1.68; 95{\%} CI, 1.12-2.51). The incidence of significant side effects during the post-procedural period was significantly higher in the TA group than in the CA group in both the RCT (P = 0.007; RR, 7.23; 95{\%} CI, 1.71-30.49) and the retrospective cohort studies (P = 0.020; RR, 4.39; 95{\%} CI, 1.33-14.46). CONCLUSIONS Based on the available data, TA was found to be more effective than CA in achieving freedom from atrial arrhythmia; however, TA had a higher rate of immediate post-procedural complications than CA.",
keywords = "Atrial fibrillation, Catheter ablation, Meta-analysis, Thoracoscopy",
author = "Kim, {Hyun Jung} and Jin-Seok Kim and Kim, {Tae Sik}",
year = "2016",
month = "6",
day = "25",
doi = "10.1093/icvts/ivw027",
language = "English",
volume = "22",
pages = "729--737",
journal = "Interactive Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery",
issn = "1569-9293",
publisher = "European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Epicardial thoracoscopic ablation versus endocardial catheter ablation for management of atrial fibrillation

T2 - A systematic review and meta-analysis

AU - Kim, Hyun Jung

AU - Kim, Jin-Seok

AU - Kim, Tae Sik

PY - 2016/6/25

Y1 - 2016/6/25

N2 - OBJECTIVES In the treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), the efficacy and safety of epicardial thoracoscopic ablation (TA) versus endocardial catheter ablation (CA) using radiofrequency energy remains unclear. This meta-analysis was performed to assess the efficacy and safety of each ablation technique using a pooled comparative analysis. METHODS Studies comparing the efficacy and safety of TA and CA were identified by searching electronic databases. Those that reported patients' freedom from atrial arrhythmia and significant side effects were included. RESULTS Three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and two retrospective cohort studies with a total of 587 patients were included in the meta-analysis (273 patients underwent TA and 314 patients underwent CA). The proportion of patients who were free of atrial arrhythmia without antiarrhythmic drugs during 12 months of follow-up was significantly higher after TA than after CA in the RCTs [P < 0.001; relative risk (RR), 1.77; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.34-2.32] and in the retrospective cohort studies (P = 0.010; RR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.12-2.51). The incidence of significant side effects during the post-procedural period was significantly higher in the TA group than in the CA group in both the RCT (P = 0.007; RR, 7.23; 95% CI, 1.71-30.49) and the retrospective cohort studies (P = 0.020; RR, 4.39; 95% CI, 1.33-14.46). CONCLUSIONS Based on the available data, TA was found to be more effective than CA in achieving freedom from atrial arrhythmia; however, TA had a higher rate of immediate post-procedural complications than CA.

AB - OBJECTIVES In the treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), the efficacy and safety of epicardial thoracoscopic ablation (TA) versus endocardial catheter ablation (CA) using radiofrequency energy remains unclear. This meta-analysis was performed to assess the efficacy and safety of each ablation technique using a pooled comparative analysis. METHODS Studies comparing the efficacy and safety of TA and CA were identified by searching electronic databases. Those that reported patients' freedom from atrial arrhythmia and significant side effects were included. RESULTS Three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and two retrospective cohort studies with a total of 587 patients were included in the meta-analysis (273 patients underwent TA and 314 patients underwent CA). The proportion of patients who were free of atrial arrhythmia without antiarrhythmic drugs during 12 months of follow-up was significantly higher after TA than after CA in the RCTs [P < 0.001; relative risk (RR), 1.77; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.34-2.32] and in the retrospective cohort studies (P = 0.010; RR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.12-2.51). The incidence of significant side effects during the post-procedural period was significantly higher in the TA group than in the CA group in both the RCT (P = 0.007; RR, 7.23; 95% CI, 1.71-30.49) and the retrospective cohort studies (P = 0.020; RR, 4.39; 95% CI, 1.33-14.46). CONCLUSIONS Based on the available data, TA was found to be more effective than CA in achieving freedom from atrial arrhythmia; however, TA had a higher rate of immediate post-procedural complications than CA.

KW - Atrial fibrillation

KW - Catheter ablation

KW - Meta-analysis

KW - Thoracoscopy

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84974602017&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84974602017&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1093/icvts/ivw027

DO - 10.1093/icvts/ivw027

M3 - Review article

C2 - 26912577

AN - SCOPUS:84974602017

VL - 22

SP - 729

EP - 737

JO - Interactive Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery

JF - Interactive Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery

SN - 1569-9293

IS - 6

ER -