RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Management of patients with long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation (LSPAF) presents a clinical challenge. Hybrid convergent ablation has been shown to have superior efficacy compared to endocardial-only ablation. However, data on concomitant left atrial appendage (LAA) management along with hybrid ablation is sparse. METHODS: We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of concomitant hybrid convergent ablation and LAA clipping in patients with LSPAF. We conducted a retrospective analysis of all patients with LSPAF who underwent hybrid surgical ablation with LAA clipping at our institution. The primary endpoint was a recurrence of atrial arrhythmias at 12 months. Further, the durability of surgical left atrial posterior wall ablation was examined during the endocardial catheter ablation using standing electrophysiological criteria. RESULTS: A total of 79 patients were included. Mean age was 63.5 ± 9.6 years, and 71% were males. LAA clipping was performed in 99% of patients. The mean time between the surgical and endocardial stages of the procedure was 2.6 ± 1.7 months. Persistent posterior wall activity was observed in 34.2% (n = 27/79) patients during the endocardial phase of the procedure. Cardiac implantable electronic device was used in 74% of patients for monitoring of recurrence of atrial fibrillation (AF). The primary effectiveness of AF freedom at 12 months was 73.8% (45/61). Over a 12-month follow-up period, 11.4% (9/79) of patients required repeat catheter ablation, of which 88.9% (8/9) had evidence of persistent posterior wall activity. CONCLUSION: Concomitant hybrid convergent ablation and LAA exclusion with an atrial clip provides reasonable long-term AF-free survival in patients with LSPAF. Persistent posterior wall activity is seen commonly in patients presenting with recurrent AF following hybrid convergent AF ablation.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Earlier studies have demonstrated disparities in patients undergoing left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation when stratified according to sex and race. Because very few data exist from large investigations, we reviewed data from the registry of the Mechanical Circulatory Support Research Network. METHODS: Between May 2004 and September 2014, 734 patients underwent primary LVAD implantation at our institutions. Median age at implant was 57 (range 18 to 82) years and there were 577 males (80%). Race included Caucasian (C) in 586 patients (82%), African-American (AA) in 112 (16%), and other (O) in 21 (3%). Between sexes, significant pre-operative differences most commonly included median age at implant (males 60 years, females 57 years), ischemic etiology (53% vs 35%) and mean INTERMACS profile (2.9 vs 2.5). Between races, significant pre-operative differences most commonly included median age at implant (C = 61 vs AA = 51 vs O = 51), New York Heart Association functional class (85% vs 100% vs 92%) and ischemic etiology (55% vs 24% vs 40%). RESULTS: There were no significant differences in survival at 1, 3 or 5 years by sex or race. Similarly, there were no differences in time-related freedom from stroke, drive-line infection, gastrointestinal bleeding or pump thrombus by sex or race. After controlling for differences, neither sex nor race was associated with survival (p = 0.09 and p = 0.18, respectively), stroke (p = 0.28 and p = 0.21), drive-line infection (p = 0.9 and p = 0.92), gastrointestinal bleed (p = 0.48 and p = 0.45) or pump thrombus (p = 0.99 and p = 0.8). CONCLUSIONS: In this large, multi-institutional analysis, although some pre-operative clinical characteristics varied, they did not translate into any significant differences in late survival or complications while on LVAD support.