James R. Edgerton

2017 HRS/EHRA/ECAS/APHRS/SOLAECE expert consensus statement on catheter and surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation

During the past three decades, catheter and surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) have evolved from investigational procedures to their current role as effective treatment options for patients with AF. Surgical ablation of AF, using either standard, minimally invasive, or hybrid techniques, is available in most major hospitals throughout the world. Catheter ablation of AF is even more widely available, and is now the most commonly performed catheter ablation procedure. In 2007, an initial Consensus Statement on Catheter and Surgical AF Ablation was developed as a joint effort of the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA), and the European Cardiac Arrhythmia Society (ECAS).1 The 2007 document was also developed in collaboration with the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) and the American College of Cardiology (ACC). This Consensus Statement on Catheter and Surgical AF Ablation was rewritten in 2012 to reflect the many advances in AF ablation that had occurred in the interim.2 The rate of advancement in the tools, techniques, and outcomes of AF ablation continue to increase as enormous research efforts are focused on the mechanisms, outcomes, and treatment of AF. For this reason, the HRS initiated an effort to rewrite and update this Consensus Statement. Reflecting both the worldwide importance of AF, as well as the worldwide performance of AF ablation, this document is the result of a joint partnership between the HRS, EHRA, ECAS, the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), and the Latin American Society of Cardiac Stimulation and Electrophysiology (Sociedad Latinoamericana de Estimulacion Cardiaca y Electrofisiologia [SOLAECE]). The purpose of this 2017 Consensus Statement is to provide a state-of-the-art review of the field of catheter and surgical ablation of AF and to report the findings of a writing group, convened by these five international societies. The writing group is charged with defining the indications, techniques, and outcomes of AF ablation procedures. Included within this document are recommendations pertinent to the design of clinical trials in the field of AF ablation and the reporting of outcomes, including definitions relevant to this topic. The writing group is composed of 60 experts representing 11 organizations: HRS, EHRA, ECAS, APHRS, SOLAECE, STS, ACC, American Heart Association (AHA), Canadian Heart Rhythm Society (CHRS), Japanese Heart Rhythm Society (JHRS), and Brazilian Society of Cardiac Arrhythmias (Sociedade Brasileira de Arritmias Cardiacas [SOBRAC]). All the members of the writing group, as well as peer reviewers of the document, have provided disclosure statements for all relationships that might be perceived as real or potential conflicts of interest. All author and peer reviewer disclosure information is provided in Appendix A and Appendix B. In writing a consensus document, it is recognized that consensus does not mean that there was complete agreement among all the writing group members. Surveys of the entire writing group were used to identify areas of consensus concerning performance of AF ablation procedures and to develop recommendations concerning the indications for catheter and surgical AF ablation. These recommendations were systematically balloted by the 60 writing group members and were approved by a minimum of 80% of these members. The recommendations were also subject to a 1-month public comment period. Each partnering and collaborating organization then officially reviewed, commented on, edited, and endorsed the final document and recommendations. The grading system for indication of class of evidence level was adapted based on that used by the ACC and the AHA.3,4 It is important to state, however, that this document is not a guideline. The indications for catheter and surgical ablation of AF, as well as recommendations for procedure performance, are presented with a Class and Level of Evidence (LOE) to be consistent with what the reader is familiar with seeing in guideline statements. A Class I recommendation means that the benefits of the AF ablation procedure markedly exceed the risks, and that AF ablation should be performed; a Class IIa recommendation means that the benefits of an AF ablation procedure exceed the risks, and that it is reasonable to perform AF ablation; a Class IIb recommendation means that the benefit of AF ablation is greater or equal to the risks, and that AF ablation may be considered; and a Class III recommendation means that AF ablation is of no proven benefit and is not recommended. The writing group reviewed and ranked evidence supporting current recommendations with the weight of evidence ranked as Level A if the data were derived from high-quality evidence from more than one randomized clinical trial, meta-analyses of high-quality randomized clinical trials, or one or more randomized clinical trials corroborated by high-quality registry studies. The writing group ranked available evidence as Level B-R when there was moderate-quality evidence from one or more randomized clinical trials, or meta-analyses of moderate-quality randomized clinical trials. Level B-NR was used to denote moderate-quality evidence from one or more well-designed, well-executed nonrandomized studies, observational studies, or registry studies. This designation was also used to denote moderate-quality evidence from meta-analyses of such studies. Evidence was ranked as Level C-LD when the primary source of the recommendation was randomized or nonrandomized observational or registry studies with limitations of design or execution, meta-analyses of such studies, or physiological or mechanistic studies of human subjects. Level C-EO was defined as expert opinion based on the clinical experience of the writing group. Despite a large number of authors, the participation of several societies and professional organizations, and the attempts of the group to reflect the current knowledge in the field adequately, this document is not intended as a guideline. Rather, the group would like to refer to the current guidelines on AF management for the purpose of guiding overall AF management strategies.5,6 This consensus document is specifically focused on catheter and surgical ablation of AF, and summarizes the opinion of the writing group members based on an extensive literature review as well as their own experience. It is directed to all health care professionals who are involved in the care of patients with AF, particularly those who are caring for patients who are undergoing, or are being considered for, catheter or surgical ablation procedures for AF, and those involved in research in the field of AF ablation. This statement is not intended to recommend or promote catheter or surgical ablation of AF. Rather, the ultimate judgment regarding care of a particular patient must be made by the health care provider and the patient in light of all the circumstances presented by that patient. The main objective of this document is to improve patient care by providing a foundation of knowledge for those involved with catheter ablation of AF. A second major objective is to provide recommendations for designing clinical trials and reporting outcomes of clinical trials of AF ablation. It is recognized that this field continues to evolve rapidly. As this document was being prepared, further clinical trials of catheter and surgical ablation of AF were under way.

2012 HRS/EHRA/ECAS expert consensus statement on catheter and surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation: recommendations for patient selection, procedural techniques, patient management and follow-up, definitions, endpoints, and research trial design

This is a report of the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS) Task Force on Catheter and Surgical Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation, developed in partnership with the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA), a registered branch of the European Society of Cardiology and the European Cardiac Arrhythmia Society (ECAS), and in collaboration with the American College of Cardiology (ACC), American Heart Association (AHA), the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS). This is endorsed by the governing bodies of the ACC Foundation, the AHA, the ECAS, the EHRA, the STS, the APHRS, and the HRS.

Analysis of hemodynamic changes during beating heart surgical procedures

BACKGROUND Coronary artery bypass grafting on the beating heart causes significant hemodynamic compromise during displacement of the heart. The precise mechanisms causing altered hemodynamics have not been clearly understood. The purpose of this study was to define the hemodynamic changes caused by displacing the heart in patients undergoing beating heart surgical procedures. METHODS Forty-four patients (35 men, 9 women; mean age, 64.5 +/- 9.6 years) underwent off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting. The hemodynamic variables were collected before and after positioning the heart for anastomosis of the left anterior descending, circumflex, and posterior descending coronary arteries. RESULTS There was a significant increase in right ventricular end-diastolic pressure during positioning for all vessels, and in left ventricular end-diastolic pressure during positioning for the left anterior descending and circumflex coronary arteries. Positioning for the circumflex artery showed the largest increase of left and right ventricular end-diastolic pressure, resulting in the greatest hemodynamic compromise. CONCLUSIONS In the clinical setting of diseased human hearts, there is a biventricular contribution to altered hemodynamics. The increase of right ventricular end-diastolic pressure in all positions suggests that the major cause of hemodynamic changes is disturbed diastolic filling of the right ventricle, especially by direct ventricular compression.

Minimally Invasive Pulmonary Vein Isolation and Partial Autonomic Denervation for Surgical Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation

BACKGROUND We seek to demonstrate the rationale and efficacy of a minimally invasive surgical approach to the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF) that combines pulmonary vein antral isolation with targeted partial autonomic denervation. METHODS The literature supporting the rationale of this approach is reviewed. Seventy-four patients underwent video-assisted bilateral pulmonary vein antral isolation with confirmation of block and partial autonomic denervation with follow-up of 6 months or greater and have a long-term rhythm monitor at 6 months. RESULTS Success was defined as no episodes greater than 15 seconds of AF on long-term monitoring. Treatment was successful in 83.7% of patients with paroxysmal AF and 56.5% of patients with persistent/long-standing persistent AF. CONCLUSIONS There are evidence-based data that support both pulmonary vein electrical isolation and targeted partial autonomic denervation in the treatment of AF. These techniques can be combined in a minimally invasive surgical approach. Early data suggest this is a safe and efficacious approach for the treatment of paroxysmal AF. Techniques are being developed for the minimally invasive surgical treatment of persistent AF from an epicardial approach.

Elimination of cardiopulmonary bypass improves early survival for multivessel coronary artery bypass patients.

BACKGROUND Coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery performed without cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) is currently increasing in clinical practice. Decreased morbidity associated with off-pump (OP) CABG in selected risk groups examined in relatively small, single institution groups has been the focus of most recent studies. The purpose of this study was to determine the independent impact of CPB on early survival in all isolated multivessel CABG patients undergoing surgery in two large institutions with established experience in OPCABG techniques. METHODS A review of two large databases employed by multiple surgeons in the hospitals of two institutions identified 8,758 multivessel CABG procedures performed from January 1998 through July 2000. In all, 8,449 procedures were included in a multivariate logistic regression analysis to determine the relative impact of CPB on mortality independent of known risk factors for mortality. Procedures were also divided into two treatment groups based on the use of CPB: 6,466 had CABG with CPB (CABG-CPB), 1,983 had CABG without CPB (OPCABG). Disparities between groups were identified by univariate analysis of 17 preoperative risk factors and treatment groups were compared by Parsonnets risk stratification model. Finally, computer-matched groups based on propensity score for institution selection for OPCABG were combined and analyzed by a logistic regression model predicting risk for mortality. RESULTS CABG-CPB was associated with increased mortality compared with OPCABG by univariate analysis, 3.5% versus 1.8%, despite a lower predicted risk in the CABG-CPB group. CPB was associated with increased mortality by multiple logistic regression analysis with an odds ratio of 1.79 (95% confidence interval = 1.24 to 2.67). An increased risk of mortality associated with CPB was also determined by logistic regression analysis of the combined computer-matched groups based on OPCABG-selection propensity scores with an odds ratio of 1.9 (95% confidence interval = 1.2 to 3.1). CONCLUSIONS Elimination of CPB improves early survival in multivessel CABG patients. Rigorous attempts to statistically account for selection bias maintained a clear association between CPB and increased mortality. Larger multiinstitutional studies are needed to confirm these findings and determine the most appropriate application of OPCABG.

A review of 1,582 consecutive Octopus off-pump coronary bypass patients

BACKGROUND Off-pump coronary bypass may provide a safer form of surgical revascularization by avoiding the unwanted complications of cardiopulmonary bypass, particularly in the increasingly complex patients being referred for operation. This study reviews the entire experience of the Medtronic Octopus System (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN) for beating heart bypass from 7 surgeons. Demographics, operative procedures, early outcomes, and trends in usage were examined. METHODS Patients were selected for off-pump procedures by the individual surgeons. Data were entered prospectively into locally maintained databases and then collected for collation and analysis. RESULTS A total of 1,582 consecutive Octopus patients were entered, representing the entire Octopus experience of each surgeon. Proportions of off-pump procedures relative to standard bypass increased over time, as did the percentage of patients receiving three or more grafts, 24.6% in 1997 and 55.9% in 1999. A total of 3,653 anastomoses were performed, 1,905 to the left anterior descending system, 837 to the circumflex distribution, and 911 to the right coronary territory. Morbidity was low. Few patients required conversion to cardiopulmonary bypass (2.6%; 0.2% urgently). Permanent stroke occurred in 0.6% and myocardial infarction in 1.2%. Operative mortality was 1%. CONCLUSIONS Octopus off-pump bypass was demonstrated to be a safe procedure with widening applicability. With experience surgeons tend to apply the system to increasing proportions of their patients and are able to revascularize all coronary territories.

Conversion in Off-Pump coronary artery bypass grafting: an analysis of predictors and outcomes

BACKGROUND The incidence, predictive factors, and outcomes related to conversion from off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) to on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (ONCAB) have not been well defined. We sought to determine the incidence of conversion, predictive factors, and any associated adverse consequences. METHODS From January 2000 through June 2002, 1,644 patients underwent nonemergent OPCAB with 61 patients requiring conversion from OPCAB to ONCAB. These groups were retrospectively compared by univariate and multivariate regression analysis. The converted group was then computer matched 1:3, to a cohort of ONCAB patients to determine differences in outcomes. RESULTS The overall conversion rate was 3.71%. Converted patients compared with a computer-matched ONCAB patients had a higher incidence of operative mortality (18.0% versus 2.7%, p < 0.001). Urgently converted patients had a higher incidence of postoperative cardiac arrest (25% versus 1.1%, p < 0.001), multisystem organ failure (10.7% versus 0.6%, p < 0.001), vascular complications (7.1% versus 1.1%, p = 0.03), and perioperative myocardial infarction (10.7% versus 1.1%, p = 0.02). Predictive factors for conversion were surgeon early in OPCAB experience (odds ratio [OR] 4.4), previous CABG (OR 2.8), and congestive heart failure (OR 2.0). The need for urgent-emergent conversion was highly predictive for operative mortality (OR 7.3) compared with elective conversion. CONCLUSIONS Patients undergoing urgent-emergent but not elective conversion from OPCAB to ONCAB had a significantly higher risk of mortality and morbidity compared with patients whose procedure was initially ONCAB. Variables predictive of conversion included previous CABG, congestive heart failure, and surgeons early in OPCAB experience.

Influence of diabetes on mortality and morbidity: off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting versus coronary artery bypass grafting with cardiopulmonary bypass

BACKGROUND Myocardial revascularization in diabetic patients is challenging with no established optimum treatment strategy. We reviewed our coronary artery bypass grafting experience to determine the impact of eliminating cardiopulmonary bypass on outcomes in diabetic patients relative to nondiabetic patients. METHODS From January 1995 through December 1999, 9,965 patients, of whom 2,891 (29%) had diabetes, underwent isolated coronary artery bypass grafting. Diabetic and nondiabetic patients were further divided into groups on the basis of cardiopulmonary bypass use. Twelve percent (346 of 2,891) of diabetic patients and 12% (829 of 7,074) of nondiabetic patients underwent coronary artery bypass grafting without cardiopulmonary bypass; the remainder had coronary artery bypass grafting with cardiopulmonary bypass. Nineteen preoperative variables were compared among treatment groups by univariate analysis. RESULTS Patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting without cardiopulmonary bypass compared with those having coronary artery bypass grafting with cardiopulmonary bypass had higher mean predicted mortalities (diabetic, 3.96% versus 3.72%, p = 0.83; nondiabetic, 3.03% versus 2.86%, p = 0.79). In nondiabetic patients, coronary artery bypass grafting without cardiopulmonary bypass provides an actual and risk-adjusted survival advantage over coronary artery bypass grafting with cardiopulmonary bypass (1.81% versus 3.44%, p = 0.0127; risk-adjusted mortality, 1.79% versus 3.61%, p = 0.007). This survival benefit of coronary artery bypass grafting without cardiopulmonary bypass was not seen in diabetic patients (2.89% versus 3.69%, p = 0.452; risk-adjusted mortality, 2.19% versus 2.98%, p = 0.42). Diabetic patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting without cardiopulmonary bypass had fewer complications, including decreased blood product use (34.39% versus 58.4%, p = 0.001), and reduced incidence of prolonged ventilation (6.94% versus 12.10%, p = 0.005), atrial fibrillation (15.90% versus 23.26%, p = 0.002), and renal failure requiring dialysis (0.87% versus 2.75%, p = 0.036). CONCLUSIONS The survival advantage in nondiabetic patients treated with coronary artery bypass grafting without cardiopulmonary bypass is not apparent in diabetic patients. Coronary artery bypass grafting without cardiopulmonary bypass in diabetic patients is nevertheless associated with a significant reduction in morbidity.

Pulmonary vein isolation and autonomic denervation for the management of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation by a minimally invasive surgical approach.

BACKGROUND Advances in technology such as epicardial bipolar radiofrequency pulmonary vein isolation, ganglionated plexi identification, and isolation and thoracoscopic left atrial appendage exclusion have enabled less invasive surgical options for management of atrial fibrillation. METHODS We performed a prospective, nonrandomized study of consecutive patients with symptomatic paroxysmal atrial fibrillation undergoing a video-assisted, minimally invasive surgical ablation procedure. The procedure consisted of bilateral, epicardial pulmonary vein isolation with bipolar radiofrequency, partial autonomic denervation, and selective excision of the left atrial appendage. Minimum follow-up was 1 year with long-term monitoring (24-hour continuous, 14-day event or pacemaker interrogation). RESULTS Between March 2005 and January 2008, 52 patients (35 male), mean age 60.3 years (range, 42-79 years) underwent the procedure. The left atrial appendage was isolated in 88.0% (44/50). Average hospital stay was 5.2 days (range 3-10 days). There were no operative deaths or major adverse cardiac events. On long-term monitoring, freedom from atrial fibrillation/flutter/tachycardia was 86.3% (44/51) and 80.8% (42/52) at 6 and 12 months, respectively. Antiarrhythmic drugs were stopped in 33 of 37 patients and warfarin in 30 of 37 of the patients in whom ablation was successful at 12 months. Freedom from symptoms attributed to atrial fibrillation/flutter/tachycardia was 78.0% (39/50) at 6 months and 63.8% (30/47) at 12 months. CONCLUSIONS Minimally invasive surgical ablation is effective in the management of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation as evidenced by freedom from atrial arrythmias by long-term monitoring at 12 months. Measuring success using clinical symptoms underestimated clinical success as compared with long-term monitoring.

Initial prospective multicenter clinical trial of robotically-assisted coronary artery bypass grafting

BACKGROUND This multicenter prospective trial was designed to assess the safety and efficacy of using a robotically-assisted microsurgical system to create endoscopic coronary anastomoses. METHODS . Thirty-two patients scheduled for elective primary coronary surgery underwent endoscopic anastomosis of the left internal thoracic artery (LITA) to the left anterior descending (LAD) artery. Three thoracic ports (two for instruments and one for a camera) were placed, and a robotic system was used to perform the LITA-LAD graft. Conventional techniques were used to perform the other grafts. Thirty-one patients underwent median sternotomy and 1 patient underwent a limited anterior thoracotomy. RESULTS . Graft flow was measured in the operating room and averaged 37 +/- 19 mL/min. Mean anastomosis time was 24 +/- 9 minutes. There were three intraoperative revisions (9%). Two were for inadequate flow and one for an inadvertent injury. Each of these grafts was successfully revised by hand. There were no technical failures of the robotic system. Average postoperative length of stay was 5.5 +/- 2.7 days. There were three reoperations for bleeding, but none of these were related to the LAD anastomosis. Two months following the operation, selective angiography revealed a graft patency of 93%. The patients have been followed for 16 +/- 4 months. CONCLUSIONS This initial prospective multicenter trial documents the feasibility of robotically-assisted coronary bypass grafting. Further trials are warranted to establish the safety and efficacy of this new technology.