The Outcome of the Cox Maze Procedure in Patients With Previous Percutaneous Catheter Ablation to Treat Atrial Fibrillation

Machine learning-based analysis of risk factors for atrial fibrillation recurrence after Cox-Maze IV procedure in patients with atrial fibrillation and chronic valvular disease: A retrospective cohort study with a control group

Objectives

To evaluate the efficacy of the Cox-Maze IV procedure (CMP-IV) in combination with valve surgery in patients with both atrial fibrillation (AF) and valvular disease and use machine learning algorithms to identify potential risk factors of AF recurrence.

Methods

A total of 1,026 patients with AF and valvular disease from two hospitals were included in the study. 555 patients received the CMP-IV procedure in addition to valve surgery and left atrial appendage ligation (CMP-IV group), while 471 patients only received valve surgery and left atrial appendage ligation (Non-CMP-IV group). Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to calculate the sinus rhythm maintenance rate. 58 variables were selected as variables for each group and 10 machine learning models were developed respectively. The performance of the models was evaluated using five-fold cross-validation and metrics including F1 score, accuracy, precision, and recall. The four best-performing models for each group were selected for further analysis, including feature importance evaluation and SHAP analysis.

Results

The 5-year sinus rhythm maintenance rate in the CMP-IV group was 82.13% (95% CI: 78.51%, 85.93%), while in the Non-CMP-IV group, it was 13.40% (95% CI: 10.44%, 17.20%). The eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), LightGBM, Category Boosting (CatBoost) and Random Fores (RF) models performed the best in the CMP-IV group, with area under the curve (AUC) values of 0.768 (95% CI: 0.742, 0.786), 0.766 (95% CI: 0.744, 0.792), 0.762 (95% CI: 0.723, 0.801), and 0.732 (95% CI: 0.701, 0.763), respectively. In the Non-CMP-IV group, the LightGBM, XGBoost, CatBoost and RF models performed the best, with AUC values of 0.738 (95% CI: 0.699, 0.777), 0.732 (95% CI: 0.694, 0.770), 0.724 (95% CI: 0.668, 0.789), and 0.716 (95% CI: 0.656, 0.774), respectively. Analysis of feature importance and SHAP revealed that duration of AF, preoperative left ventricular ejection fraction, postoperative heart rhythm, preoperative neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio, preoperative left atrial diameter and heart rate were significant factors in AF recurrence.

Conclusion

CMP-IV is effective in treating AF and multiple machine learning models were successfully developed, and several risk factors were identified for AF recurrence, which may aid clinical decision-making and optimize the individual surgical management of AF.

The impact of previous catheter-based ablation on the efficacy of the Cox-maze IV procedure

BACKGROUND

Failed catheter-based ablation for the treatment of atrial fibrillation is an indication for the Cox-maze procedure. Many patients are referred for the Cox-maze IV procedure with recurrent atrial fibrillation after a previous catheter-based ablation, but the efficacy and safety of surgical management in these patients remains unclear.

METHODS

Data were collected prospectively on 129 consecutive patients who underwent a stand-alone Cox-maze IV procedure. Patients were grouped by the presence (n=61; 47%) or absence (n=68; 53%) of previous catheter ablation history. Follow-up was conducted at 3, 6, and 12 months (94% complete, mean 15.1±15.6 months) with electrocardiograms and 24-hour Holter monitoring.

RESULTS

In patients with no ablation history compared with those with, freedom from atrial tachyarrhythmias and antiarrhythmic drugs were similar at 3 months (73% versus 67%), 6 months (85% versus 83%), and 12 months (81% versus 87%; p<0.05 for all). Those who had failed previous catheter ablation had significantly smaller left atria and longer durations of atrial fibrillation, and were more likely to have persistent atrial fibrillation compared with the group without prior ablation history. All analyzed baseline patient characteristics and comorbidities were similar between the groups. No differences were found in complication rates or surrogate measures of operative difficulty.

CONCLUSIONS

The Cox-maze IV procedure is safe and effective in treating recurrent atrial fibrillation regardless of previous catheter ablation history. Surgical management should be considered in patients who have failed catheter ablation for the treatment of their atrial fibrillation.

[Surgical atrial fibrillation ablation therapy and postoperative monitoring]

Atrial fibrillation represents the most common atrial arrhythmia seen in clinical practice. The surgical treatment of atrial fibrillation is recommended in symptomatic patients as well as in asymptomatic patients at low postoperative risk. As a "stand alone" procedure, surgical ablation therapy is indicated after failed catheter ablation therapy, which occurs increasingly due to the high number of catheter-based ablation techniques. In order to gain acceptance among patients as well as referring cardiologists, the surgical ablation procedure ought to be performed in a minimally invasive fashion and with a very high success rate. When applied in an interdisciplinary approach by cardiologists/electrophysiologists and cardiothoracic surgeons, both ablative techniques have the potential to treat atrial fibrillation effectively and in the long-term. In order to document the true heart rhythm after ablation therapy, intermittent "snapshot" ECG documentation ought to be avoided. Small leadless devices that can be implanted subcutaneously enable full heart rhythm disclosure with documentation of atrial arrhythmias. The modern technique of implantable loop recorders permits individualized treatment for each patient.