Ablation of atrial fibrillation: Comparison of catheter-based techniques and the cox-maze III operation

John M. Stulak, Joseph A. Dearani, Thoralf M. Sundt, Richard C. Daly, Hartzell V Schaff

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

30 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Catheter-based ablation is often recommended for treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF), but there are no data that directly compare late results to those of the Cox-Maze procedure. Although catheter ablation avoids operation, lack of reliable transmurality may reduce effectiveness. We compared clinical outcomes of the cut-and-sew Cox-Maze procedure with catheter ablation. Methods: Between January 1993 and October 2007, 97 patients aged 25 to 80 years underwent an isolated cut-and-sew Cox-Maze procedure. Patients were matched 1:2 according to age, sex, and AF type, with 194 patients undergoing catheter-based ablation for lone AF. Results: At last follow-up, 82% of patients who underwent the Cox-Maze procedure were free of AF and had stopped taking antiarrhythmic medications compared with 55% of patients who underwent ablation (p < 0.001). When analyzed as a time-related event, freedom from recurrent AF was 87% 5 years after the Cox-Maze procedure compared with 28% after catheter ablation (p < 0.001). Late warfarin anticoagulation was required in 12% of patients who underwent the Cox-Maze procedure compared with 55% of patients who underwent ablation (p < 0.001), and use of antiarrhythmic medications during follow-up was significantly higher in patients who underwent ablation (68% versus 15%, p < 0.001). Forty-one patients (24%) required repeated ablation procedure and 9 required a second repeated ablation. Conclusions: Compared with catheter-based ablation, the Cox-Maze procedure results in greater freedom from AF and less medical treatment with antiarrhythmic drugs and warfarin anticoagulation during follow-up.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1882-1888
Number of pages7
JournalAnnals of Thoracic Surgery
Volume91
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 2011

Fingerprint

Atrial Fibrillation
Catheter Ablation
Catheters
Warfarin
Anti-Arrhythmia Agents
Therapeutics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

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

Cite this

Ablation of atrial fibrillation : Comparison of catheter-based techniques and the cox-maze III operation. / Stulak, John M.; Dearani, Joseph A.; Sundt, Thoralf M.; Daly, Richard C.; Schaff, Hartzell V.

In: Annals of Thoracic Surgery, Vol. 91, No. 6, 06.2011, p. 1882-1888.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Stulak, John M. ; Dearani, Joseph A. ; Sundt, Thoralf M. ; Daly, Richard C. ; Schaff, Hartzell V. / Ablation of atrial fibrillation : Comparison of catheter-based techniques and the cox-maze III operation. In: Annals of Thoracic Surgery. 2011 ; Vol. 91, No. 6. pp. 1882-1888.
@article{9aac1a80af1244ca9a41eeeaf4d65e56,
title = "Ablation of atrial fibrillation: Comparison of catheter-based techniques and the cox-maze III operation",
abstract = "Background: Catheter-based ablation is often recommended for treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF), but there are no data that directly compare late results to those of the Cox-Maze procedure. Although catheter ablation avoids operation, lack of reliable transmurality may reduce effectiveness. We compared clinical outcomes of the cut-and-sew Cox-Maze procedure with catheter ablation. Methods: Between January 1993 and October 2007, 97 patients aged 25 to 80 years underwent an isolated cut-and-sew Cox-Maze procedure. Patients were matched 1:2 according to age, sex, and AF type, with 194 patients undergoing catheter-based ablation for lone AF. Results: At last follow-up, 82{\%} of patients who underwent the Cox-Maze procedure were free of AF and had stopped taking antiarrhythmic medications compared with 55{\%} of patients who underwent ablation (p < 0.001). When analyzed as a time-related event, freedom from recurrent AF was 87{\%} 5 years after the Cox-Maze procedure compared with 28{\%} after catheter ablation (p < 0.001). Late warfarin anticoagulation was required in 12{\%} of patients who underwent the Cox-Maze procedure compared with 55{\%} of patients who underwent ablation (p < 0.001), and use of antiarrhythmic medications during follow-up was significantly higher in patients who underwent ablation (68{\%} versus 15{\%}, p < 0.001). Forty-one patients (24{\%}) required repeated ablation procedure and 9 required a second repeated ablation. Conclusions: Compared with catheter-based ablation, the Cox-Maze procedure results in greater freedom from AF and less medical treatment with antiarrhythmic drugs and warfarin anticoagulation during follow-up.",
author = "Stulak, {John M.} and Dearani, {Joseph A.} and Sundt, {Thoralf M.} and Daly, {Richard C.} and Schaff, {Hartzell V}",
year = "2011",
month = "6",
doi = "10.1016/j.athoracsur.2011.02.035",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "91",
pages = "1882--1888",
journal = "Annals of Thoracic Surgery",
issn = "0003-4975",
publisher = "Elsevier USA",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Ablation of atrial fibrillation

T2 - Comparison of catheter-based techniques and the cox-maze III operation

AU - Stulak, John M.

AU - Dearani, Joseph A.

AU - Sundt, Thoralf M.

AU - Daly, Richard C.

AU - Schaff, Hartzell V

PY - 2011/6

Y1 - 2011/6

N2 - Background: Catheter-based ablation is often recommended for treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF), but there are no data that directly compare late results to those of the Cox-Maze procedure. Although catheter ablation avoids operation, lack of reliable transmurality may reduce effectiveness. We compared clinical outcomes of the cut-and-sew Cox-Maze procedure with catheter ablation. Methods: Between January 1993 and October 2007, 97 patients aged 25 to 80 years underwent an isolated cut-and-sew Cox-Maze procedure. Patients were matched 1:2 according to age, sex, and AF type, with 194 patients undergoing catheter-based ablation for lone AF. Results: At last follow-up, 82% of patients who underwent the Cox-Maze procedure were free of AF and had stopped taking antiarrhythmic medications compared with 55% of patients who underwent ablation (p < 0.001). When analyzed as a time-related event, freedom from recurrent AF was 87% 5 years after the Cox-Maze procedure compared with 28% after catheter ablation (p < 0.001). Late warfarin anticoagulation was required in 12% of patients who underwent the Cox-Maze procedure compared with 55% of patients who underwent ablation (p < 0.001), and use of antiarrhythmic medications during follow-up was significantly higher in patients who underwent ablation (68% versus 15%, p < 0.001). Forty-one patients (24%) required repeated ablation procedure and 9 required a second repeated ablation. Conclusions: Compared with catheter-based ablation, the Cox-Maze procedure results in greater freedom from AF and less medical treatment with antiarrhythmic drugs and warfarin anticoagulation during follow-up.

AB - Background: Catheter-based ablation is often recommended for treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF), but there are no data that directly compare late results to those of the Cox-Maze procedure. Although catheter ablation avoids operation, lack of reliable transmurality may reduce effectiveness. We compared clinical outcomes of the cut-and-sew Cox-Maze procedure with catheter ablation. Methods: Between January 1993 and October 2007, 97 patients aged 25 to 80 years underwent an isolated cut-and-sew Cox-Maze procedure. Patients were matched 1:2 according to age, sex, and AF type, with 194 patients undergoing catheter-based ablation for lone AF. Results: At last follow-up, 82% of patients who underwent the Cox-Maze procedure were free of AF and had stopped taking antiarrhythmic medications compared with 55% of patients who underwent ablation (p < 0.001). When analyzed as a time-related event, freedom from recurrent AF was 87% 5 years after the Cox-Maze procedure compared with 28% after catheter ablation (p < 0.001). Late warfarin anticoagulation was required in 12% of patients who underwent the Cox-Maze procedure compared with 55% of patients who underwent ablation (p < 0.001), and use of antiarrhythmic medications during follow-up was significantly higher in patients who underwent ablation (68% versus 15%, p < 0.001). Forty-one patients (24%) required repeated ablation procedure and 9 required a second repeated ablation. Conclusions: Compared with catheter-based ablation, the Cox-Maze procedure results in greater freedom from AF and less medical treatment with antiarrhythmic drugs and warfarin anticoagulation during follow-up.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79957673647&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79957673647&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2011.02.035

DO - 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2011.02.035

M3 - Article

C2 - 21619987

AN - SCOPUS:79957673647

VL - 91

SP - 1882

EP - 1888

JO - Annals of Thoracic Surgery

JF - Annals of Thoracic Surgery

SN - 0003-4975

IS - 6

ER -