Biatrial ablation vs. Pulmonary vein isolation in atrial fibrillation patients undergoing cardiac surgery: a retrospective study.

Surgical ablation is an established treatment for patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing cardiac surgery. This study aimed to compare postoperative rhythm outcomes and pacemaker implantation rates after biatrial ablation or pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) concomitantly with other cardiac surgery. Design: In a retrospective study, we included patients who underwent biatrial ablation or PVI. Postoperative rhythm status was assessed by Holter monitoring. All data on outcomes and patient characteristics were collected retrospectively. Results: In total 109 patients had a biatrial procedure whereas 337 had PVI performed. In patients with persistent/long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation, freedom from atrial fibrillation was more common after biatrial ablation than after PVI (63% and 45%, respectively; p = .039). Postoperative permanent pacemaker implantation was more common after biatrial ablation (12% and 6%, respectively; p = .039), compared to PVI. Age < 65 years (OR:2.0, 95% CI:1.1-3.6) was a predictor of freedom from atrial fibrillation in the biatrial group, whereas absence of left atrial dilatation (OR:1.8, 95% CI:1.1-3.2) and HAS-BLED score < 2 (OR:1.9, 95% CI:1.0-3.8) were significant predictors of freedom from atrial fibrillation in the PVI group. Conclusions: In patients with persistent/long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation, biatrial ablation is more effective than PVI in terms of obtaining freedom from postoperative atrial fibrillation. Although our groups were heterogenic in terms of concomitant surgery, our study also indicates that the risk of needing a permanent pacemaker is higher after biatrial ablation, compared to PVI. Therefore, our study highlights that the decision between biatrial ablation or PVI should be performed on an individual basis.