Objective: To use novel statistical methods for analyzing the effect of lesion set on (long-standing) persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) in the Cardiothoracic Surgical Trials Network trial of surgical ablation during mitral valve surgery (MVS). Methods: Two hundred sixty such patients were randomized to MVS + surgical ablation or MVS alone. Ablation was randomized between pulmonary vein isolation and biatrial maze. During 12 months postsurgery, 228 patients (88%) submitted 7949 transtelephonic monitoring (TTM) recordings, analyzed for AF, atrial flutter (AFL), or atrial tachycardia (AT). As previously reported, more ablation than MVS-alone patients were free of AF or AF/AFL at 6 and 12 months (63% vs 29%; P < .001) by 72-hour Holter monitoring, without evident difference between lesion sets (for which the trial was underpowered). Results: Estimated freedom from AF/AFL/ATon any transmission trended higher after biatrial maze than pulmonary vein isolation (odds ratio, 2.31; 95% confidence interval, 0.95–5.65; P = .07) 3 to 12 months postsurgery; estimated AF/AFL/AT load (ie, proportion of TTM strips recording AF/AFL/AT) was similar (odds ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval, 0.57–1.43; P .6). Within 12 months, estimated prevalence of AF/AFL/AT by TTM was 58% after MVS alone, and 36% versus 23% after pulmonary vein isolation versus biatrial maze (P<.02). Conclusions: Statistical modeling using TTM recordings after MVS in patients with (long-standing) persistent AF suggests that a biatrial maze is associated with lower AF/AFL/AT prevalence, but not a lower load, compared with pulmonary vein isolation. The discrepancy between AF/AFL/AT prevalence assessed at 2 time points by Holter monitoring versus weekly TTM suggests the need for a confirmatory trial, reassessment of definitions for failure after ablation, and validation of statistical methods for assessing atrial rhythms longitudinally.
Background— There is a paucity of data on the comparative effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention using contemporary drug-eluting stent (DES) compared with coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery in patients with chronic kidney disease. Methods and Results— A population-based study was performed using the Cardiac Care Network, a provincial registry of all patients undergoing cardiac catheterization in Ontario, to evaluate patients treated with either percutaneous coronary intervention using DES or CABG between October 1, 2008, and September 30, 2011. Chronic kidney disease was defined as creatinine clearance <60 mL/min. A total of 1786 propensity-matched patients from 4006 patients with chronic kidney disease undergoing index revascularization for multivessel disease with either DES or isolated CABG (n=893 each group) were analyzed. Baseline and procedural characteristics between percutaneous coronary intervention and CABG groups were well-balanced, including urgent revascularization priority, diabetes mellitus, left ventricular function, and 3-vessel disease. The 1-, 2-, and 3-year Kaplan–Meier survival analyses in propensity-matched patients favored CABG (93.2% versus 89.3%; 86.6% versus 80.3%; 80.8% versus 71.5%, respectively; P <0.001). The CABG cohort had greater 1-, 2-, and 3-year freedom from major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (89.4% versus 71.2%; 81.9% versus 60.5%; 75.2% versus 51.8%, respectively; P <0.001). Cox regression analysis identified DES use to be associated with greater hazard for late mortality (hazard ratio, 1.58; 95% confidence interval, 1.32–1.90) and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (2.62; 2.28–3.01; all P <0.001). Conclusions— In this large provincial registry, CABG was associated with improved early and late clinical outcomes when compared with percutaneous coronary intervention using DES in patients with chronic kidney disease undergoing index revascularization.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.