Surgical Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation in Cardiac Surgery a Consensus Statement of the International Society of Minimally Invasive Cardiothoracic Surgery (ISMICS) 2009
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective This purpose of this consensus conference was to determine whether surgical atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation during cardiac surgery improves clinical and resource outcomes compared with cardiac surgery alone in adults undergoing cardiac surgery for valve or coronary artery bypass grafting. Methods Before the consensus conference, the consensus panel reviewed the best available evidence, whereby systematic reviews, randomized trials, and nonrandomized trials were considered in descending order of validity and importance. Evidence-based statements were created, and consensus processes were used to determine the ensuing recommendations. The American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology system was used to label the level of evidence and class of recommendation. Results The consensus panel agreed on the following statements in patients with AF undergoing cardiac surgery concomitant surgical ablation: 1. Improves the achievement of sinus rhythm at discharge and 1 year (level A); this effect is sustained up to 5 years (level B). Does not reduce the use of antiarrhythmic drugs at 12 months after surgery (level A; 36.0% vs. 45.4%), although trials were not designed to answer this question. 2. Does not increase the requirement for permanent pacemaker implantation (4.4% vs. 4.8%; level A). 3. Does not increase the risk of perioperative mortality (level A), stroke (level A), myocardial infarction (level B), cardiac tamponade (level A), reoperative bleeding (level A), esophageal injury (level B), low cardiac output (level A), intraaortic balloon (level B), congestive heart failure (level B), ejection fraction (EF; level B), pleural effusion (level A), pneumonia (level A), renal dysfunction (level B), and mediastinitis (level A). The incidence of esophageal injury remains to be low (level B). 4. Does not reduce mortality at 1 year (level A). There is a possible reduction in mortality beyond 1 year (level B), but no difference in stroke (level A), myocardial infarction (level A), and heart failure (level B). EF is increased (+4.1% more than control; level A). 5. Has been shown to improve exercise tolerance at 1 year (level A), but no impact on quality of life at 3 months and 1 year (level A); however, the methodology used and the number of trials studying these outcomes are insufficient. 6. Increases cardiopulmonary bypass and cross-clamp times (level A), with no difference in intensive care unit and hospital length of stay (level A). Overall costs were not reported. Conclusions Given these evidence-based statements, the consensus panel stated that, in patients with persistent and permanent AF undergoing cardiac surgery, concomitant surgical ablation is recommended to increase incidence of sinus rhythm at short- and long-term follow-up (class 1, level A); to reduce the risk of stroke and thromboembolic events (class 2a, level B); to improve EF (class 2a, level A); and to exercise tolerance (class 2a, level A) and long-term survival (class 2a, level B).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.083 | 0.111 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".