This study is aimed to compare the efficacy of bi-atrial ablation with left atrial ablation for atrial fibrillation during mitral valve surgery in patients with rheumatic mitral valve disease.
Atrial fibrillation (AF) is present in 40%-60% of patients with rheumatic mitral valve disease (RMVD), which is an independent predictor of mortality and late stroke. During mitral valve (MV) surgery, the open left atrium facilitates a bi-atrial ablation procedure. However, a simplified lesion set including isolated pulmonary vein isolation or posterior left atrial (LA) wall isolation or LA maze was usually applied. The current literatures provide insufficient evidence to determine the potential benefits of bi-atrial ablation procedure when comparing with LA ablation procrdure in patients with non-paroxysmal AF and RMVD. Patients with RMVD often have longer history, which tends to affect the right atrium, including pulmonary hypertension or tricuspid regurgitation.The necessity of bi-atrial ablation procedure targeting the bi-atrial substrate for AF in RMVD requires to be explored. In this study, we aimed to compare the efficacy of bi-atrial ablation with LA ablation for AF during MV surgery in patients with RMVD.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
DOUBLE
Enrollment
320
This intervention includes mitral valve surgery concomitant with left atrial ablation and right atrial ablation.
This intervention includes mitral valve surgery concomitant with left atrial ablation alone.
Fuwai Hospital
Beijing, Beijing Municipality, China
RECRUITINGNanjing First Hospital, Nanjing Medical University
Nanjing, Jiangsu, China
RECRUITINGSurvival rate without any recurrence of atrial tachyarrhythmias in the absence of antiarrhythmic drugs
Without detections of atrial fibrillation, atrial flutter, or other atrial tachyarrhythmias with a duration of greater than 30 seconds documented by 3-day Holter monitoring in the absence of antiarrhythmic drugs.
Time frame: At 12-month after intervention
Survival rate without permanent pacemaker implantation (Key secondary outcome)
Percentage of participants who did not have a new permanent pacemaker implanted.
Time frame: At 12-month after intervention
Survival rate without any recurrence of atrial tachyarrhythmias with antiarrhythmic drugs
Without detections of atrial fibrillation, atrial flutter, or other atrial tachyarrhythmias with a duration of greater than 30 seconds documented by 3-day Holter monitoring with antiarrhythmic drugs.
Time frame: At 12-month after intervention
Burden of atrial fibrillation
Burden of atrial fibrillation according to 3-day Holter monitoring.
Time frame: At 12-month after intervention
Major adverse events
Including cardiac death, stroke, heart failure requiring rehospitalization, embolic events or bleeding events requiring rehospitalization.
Time frame: At 12-month after intervention
Cardiac function
Documented by echocardiography (left ventricular ejection fraction).
Time frame: At 12-month after intervention
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.