Article Sidebar

PDF
Date Published: 12/09/2024
Abstract Views: 90
Views PDF: 46
DOI: https://doi.org/10.51298/vmj.v542i1.10961
Issue
Vol. 542 No. 1 (2024)
Section
Các bài báo
How to Cite
Nguyễn , T. K., Nguyễn , N. T., & Nguyễn , S. H. (2024). RISK FACTORS FOR RECURRENCE OF ATRIAL FIBRILLATION IN PATIENTS WITH MITRAL VALVE REPAIR OR BIOLOGICAL MITRAL VALVE REPLACEMENT COMBINED WITH MAZE PROCEDURE. Vietnam Medical Journal, 542(1). https://doi.org/10.51298/vmj.v542i1.10961

RISK FACTORS FOR RECURRENCE OF ATRIAL FIBRILLATION IN PATIENTS WITH MITRAL VALVE REPAIR OR BIOLOGICAL MITRAL VALVE REPLACEMENT COMBINED WITH MAZE PROCEDURE

Thế Kiên Nguyễn , Ngọc Trung Nguyễn , Sinh Hiền Nguyễn

Main Article Content

Abstract

Objective: Determine risk factors for recurrence of atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients undergoing mitral valve repair (MVR) or biological mitral valve replacement (BMVR) combined with Maze procedure. Subjects and methods: This was a non-controlled prospective study combined with retrospective review, reporting a series of cases. Results: There were total of 95 patients and the mean follow-up time was 24.3 ± 14.2 months. The incident of AF at the endpoint of follow-up was 27.4%, with 26.5% for MVR group and 30.8% for BMVR group. There was no difference in the rate of AF between two groups (p > 0.05). Left atrial volume index (LAVi) and Left ventricular (LV) mass index were determined risk factors for recurrence of AF, using regression analysis. The threshold value for AF recurrence of the LAVi and LV mass index are 124ml/m2 and 172g/m2, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of LAVi were 75.0%, 86.2% and those of LV mass index were 66.7%, 87.9%, respectively. Conclusion: LAVi and LV mass index were independent risk factors for recurrence of AF after Maze procedure combined with MVR or BMVR.

Article Details

Keywords

atrial fibrillation, atrial fibrillation recurrence, Maze procedure, mitral valve repair, mitral valve replacement.

References

Kirchhof, P., et al., 2016 ESC Guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation developed in collaboration with EACTS. Eur Heart J, 2016. 37(38): p. 2893-2962.
2. Badhwar, V., et al., The Society of Thoracic Surgeons 2017 Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Surgical Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation. Ann Thorac Surg, 2017. 103(1): p. 329-341.
3. January, C.T., et al., 2019 AHA/ACC/HRS Focused Update of the 2014 AHA/ACC/HRS Guideline for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Heart Rhythm Society in Collaboration With the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Circulation, 2019. 140(2): p. e125-e151.
4. Fan, X., et al., Mitral valve repair and concomitant maze procedure versus catheter ablation in the treatment of atrial functional mitral regurgitation. BMC Cardiovasc Disord, 2022. 22(1): p. 543.
5. MacGregor, R.M., et al., Impact of age on atrial fibrillation recurrence following surgical ablation. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg, 2021. 162(5): p. 1516-1528.e1.
6. Dunning, J., et al., Guideline for the surgical treatment of atrial fibrillation. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg, 2013. 44(5): p. 777-91.
7. Njoku, A., et al., Left atrial volume predicts atrial fibrillation recurrence after radiofrequency ablation: a meta-analysis. Europace, 2018. 20(1): p. 33-42.
8. Kataoka, T., et al., Left atrium volume index and pathological features of left atrial appendage as a predictor of failure in postoperative sinus conversion. J Cardiol, 2010. 55(2): p. 274-82