Safety and effectiveness of catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation in patients with mitral valve replacement mechanical versus bioprosthetic valves

Abstract

Introduction: The safety and effectiveness of catheter ablation in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) who underwent mechanical mitral valve replacement (MVR) have been reported. However, the impacts of different types of mitral valves on the safety and effectiveness of catheter ablation in patients with AF who underwent MVR have not been elucidated. Methods and results: From 2015 to 2021, 17,496 patients underwent catheter ablation of AF for the first time in Beijing Anzhen Hospital were screened. The inclusion criteria were (1) aged 18 years or older; (2) diagnosed with AF; (3) history of mitral valve replacement. The exclusion criteria were a history of catheter ablation, surgical maze procedure, left atrial appendage closure or resection. A total of 68 patients were enrolled in the study. The patients were divided into two groups: the bioprosthetic MVR group (n=12) and the mechanical MVR group(n=58). The size of the left atrial was larger (49.5mm vs. 46.0mm, p<0.05), the thickness of the left interventricular septum was larger (11.0mm vs. 10.0mm, p<0.05), and the mitral ring area was smaller (2.3mm2 vs. 2.6mm2, p<0.05) for the bioprosthetic MVR group than the mechanical MVR group. During 23.4 (6.1, 36.5) months of follow-up, the incidence of the endpoint events was not significantly different between the two groups (33.3% vs. 30.4%, log-rank p=0.48). There were 2 cases (3.4%) of pseudoaneurysm and 1 case of acute cerebral infarction in the mechanical MVR group. No complication was observed in the bioprosthetic MVR group. No significant clinical bleeding events were observed in the bioprosthetic group while eight patients in the mechanical MVR groups had bleeding events (p=0.368) during the follow-up. Conclusion: The safety and effectiveness of catheter ablation of AF were comparable between the patients with mechanical MVR and bioprosthetic MVR.