ReviewEuropean journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery2025
Surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation with concomitant cardiac surgery: a state-of-the-art review.
Review in European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Intraoperative Atrial Fibrillation in Non-Cardiac Surgery: A Narrative Review of Risk Factors and Management Strategies.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
- Concomitant Surgical Ablation Using a Novel Bipolar Radiofrequency Clamp: Outcomes from the TRAC-AF Registry.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Superior vena cava and atrial cardiomyopathy: role of adjunctive superior vena cava isolation ablation in atrial fibrillation.Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
31 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Patients with preoperative atrial fibrillation (AF) undergoing cardiac surgery face a heightened risk of complications and reduced survival. Concomitant surgical ablation (SA) has shown promise in mitigating the arrhythmic burden, prompting guideline upgrades by major scientific societies. However, SA remains underutilized, with performance rates varying between 22% and 48%, depending on the type of procedure. The goal of this narrative review is to summarize current evidence to aid physicians in decision making regarding AF management during cardiac surgery. This review examines existing literature on the prevalence, management and outcomes of AF in cardiac surgery. We assess epidemiological data, summarize trends in clinical practice and review the rationale and techniques for treating AF surgically. Emerging challenges, including barriers to implementation and novel therapeutic advancements, are also discussed. Evidence underscores the detrimental impact of preoperative AF on perioperative and long-term outcomes, including higher mortality, morbidity and thromboembolic risk. Concomitant SA, particularly the Cox-maze IV procedure, significantly improves sinus rhythm restoration, reduces mortality and mitigates complications like stroke. However, the procedure remains underperformed due to concerns about complexity, prolonged operative time and training gaps. Emerging hybrid techniques, novel mapping systems and technologies like pulsed field ablation may enhance outcomes and broaden SA adoption. Concomitant SA is an effective yet underutilized therapy that can improve survival and reduce AF-related complications in cardiac surgery patients. Addressing implementation barriers and integrating advancements in technology and surgical approaches are key to optimizing patient outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.