Risk of Atrial Fibrillation Recurrence After Modified Cox-Maze IV Surgery: Comparing Atrial Functional Mitral Regurgitation and Rheumatic Mitral Regurgitation.

IF 2.2 4区 医学 Q3 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Reviews in cardiovascular medicine Pub Date : 2026-09-07 eCollection Date: 2026-09-01 DOI:10.31083/RCM49184
Ke Xu, Jingcheng Wu, Yi Li, Lailong Sun, Ming Yan, Fuwei Zhang, Chaobing Liu, SongLin Zhang
{"title":"Risk of Atrial Fibrillation Recurrence After Modified Cox-Maze IV Surgery: Comparing Atrial Functional Mitral Regurgitation and Rheumatic Mitral Regurgitation.","authors":"Ke Xu, Jingcheng Wu, Yi Li, Lailong Sun, Ming Yan, Fuwei Zhang, Chaobing Liu, SongLin Zhang","doi":"10.31083/RCM49184","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The comparative efficacy of the modified Cox-Maze IV procedure (CMP IV) in treating atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with atrial functional mitral regurgitation (AFMR) and those with rheumatic mitral regurgitation (RMR) remains inadequately characterized. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate and compare postoperative AF recurrence rates and clinical outcomes between these two etiologically distinct groups.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective analysis was conducted on 221 patients (AFMR group: n = 53; RMR group: n = 168) with concomitant long-standing persistent AF who underwent mitral valve surgery combined with modified CMP IV or other concomitant procedures at our institution between January 2019 and September 2024. To address baseline imbalances, propensity score matching was performed at a 1:1 ratio, resulting in well-matched cohorts of 32 patients with AFMR and 32 with RMR patients for the final analysis. The primary endpoint was AF recurrence. Statistical comparisons utilized chi-square tests, <i>t</i>-tests, exact McNemar tests, and paired <i>t</i>-tests.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After PSM, 32 patients remained in each group with balanced baselines. The AFMR group showed a higher trend toward postoperative AF recurrence. Pre‑discharge AF recurrence rates did not differ significantly between groups (37.5% vs. 12.5%; <i>p</i> = 0.057), however, the risk of AF recurrence before discharge was significantly higher in the AFMR group (OR = 3.67, 95% CI: 1.02-13.14, <i>p</i> = 0.046). At the 1-year follow-up, a statistically significant difference in AF recurrence was observed between the two groups (31.2% vs 6.2%, <i>p</i> = 0.021), and the risk difference persisted (OR = 9.00, 95% CI: 1.14-71.04, <i>p</i> = 0.037). Kaplan-Meier analysis showed a significant difference in freedom from AF recurrence (log‑rank χ<sup>2</sup> = 6.33; <i>p</i> = 0.012), supported by sensitivity analyses (log‑rank χ<sup>2</sup> = 6.01; <i>p</i> = 0.014). Mortality did not differ at 30 days (3.1% vs. 0%; <i>p</i> = 1.000) or 1 year (3.1% vs. 3.1%; <i>p</i> = 1.000), with comparable overall survival (log‑rank <i>p</i> = 0.99).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In patients undergoing mitral valve surgery with modified CMP IV, those with AFMR exhibit a significantly higher risk of postoperative AF recurrence compared with patients with RMR, despite similar early-term survival outcomes. Postoperative AF monitoring should be intensified in patients with AFMR to improve long-term outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":20989,"journal":{"name":"Reviews in cardiovascular medicine","volume":"27 9","pages":"49184"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13653180/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Reviews in cardiovascular medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31083/RCM49184","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/9/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The comparative efficacy of the modified Cox-Maze IV procedure (CMP IV) in treating atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with atrial functional mitral regurgitation (AFMR) and those with rheumatic mitral regurgitation (RMR) remains inadequately characterized. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate and compare postoperative AF recurrence rates and clinical outcomes between these two etiologically distinct groups.

Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 221 patients (AFMR group: n = 53; RMR group: n = 168) with concomitant long-standing persistent AF who underwent mitral valve surgery combined with modified CMP IV or other concomitant procedures at our institution between January 2019 and September 2024. To address baseline imbalances, propensity score matching was performed at a 1:1 ratio, resulting in well-matched cohorts of 32 patients with AFMR and 32 with RMR patients for the final analysis. The primary endpoint was AF recurrence. Statistical comparisons utilized chi-square tests, t-tests, exact McNemar tests, and paired t-tests.

Results: After PSM, 32 patients remained in each group with balanced baselines. The AFMR group showed a higher trend toward postoperative AF recurrence. Pre‑discharge AF recurrence rates did not differ significantly between groups (37.5% vs. 12.5%; p = 0.057), however, the risk of AF recurrence before discharge was significantly higher in the AFMR group (OR = 3.67, 95% CI: 1.02-13.14, p = 0.046). At the 1-year follow-up, a statistically significant difference in AF recurrence was observed between the two groups (31.2% vs 6.2%, p = 0.021), and the risk difference persisted (OR = 9.00, 95% CI: 1.14-71.04, p = 0.037). Kaplan-Meier analysis showed a significant difference in freedom from AF recurrence (log‑rank χ2 = 6.33; p = 0.012), supported by sensitivity analyses (log‑rank χ2 = 6.01; p = 0.014). Mortality did not differ at 30 days (3.1% vs. 0%; p = 1.000) or 1 year (3.1% vs. 3.1%; p = 1.000), with comparable overall survival (log‑rank p = 0.99).

Conclusions: In patients undergoing mitral valve surgery with modified CMP IV, those with AFMR exhibit a significantly higher risk of postoperative AF recurrence compared with patients with RMR, despite similar early-term survival outcomes. Postoperative AF monitoring should be intensified in patients with AFMR to improve long-term outcomes.

改良Cox-Maze IV手术后房颤复发的风险:心房功能性二尖瓣反流与风湿性二尖瓣反流的比较。
背景:改良Cox-Maze IV手术(CMP IV)治疗心房功能性二尖瓣反流(AFMR)和风湿性二尖瓣反流(RMR)患者心房颤动(AF)的比较疗效尚不充分。因此,本研究旨在评估和比较这两种不同病因组的术后房颤复发率和临床结果。方法:回顾性分析2019年1月至2024年9月在我院行二尖瓣手术联合改良CMP IV或其他伴随手术的合并长期持续性房颤患者221例(AFMR组53例;RMR组168例)。为了解决基线不平衡问题,以1:1的比例进行倾向评分匹配,得到32例AFMR患者和32例RMR患者的良好匹配队列,用于最终分析。主要终点为房颤复发。统计比较使用卡方检验、t检验、精确McNemar检验和配对t检验。结果:经PSM后,各组均有32例患者,基线平衡。AFMR组术后AF复发率较高。出院前房颤复发率两组间无显著差异(37.5% vs 12.5%, p = 0.057),但AFMR组出院前房颤复发率显著高于AFMR组(OR = 3.67, 95% CI: 1.02-13.14, p = 0.046)。1年随访时,两组AF复发率差异有统计学意义(31.2% vs 6.2%, p = 0.021),且风险差异持续存在(OR = 9.00, 95% CI: 1.14-71.04, p = 0.037)。Kaplan-Meier分析显示AF复发自由度有显著差异(log - rank χ2 = 6.33; p = 0.012),敏感性分析也支持这一结果(log - rank χ2 = 6.01; p = 0.014)。30天(3.1%对0%,p = 1.000)或1年(3.1%对3.1%,p = 1.000)的死亡率无差异,总生存率相当(log - rank p = 0.99)。结论:在接受改良CMP IV二尖瓣手术的患者中,尽管早期生存结果相似,但与RMR患者相比,AFMR患者术后AF复发的风险明显更高。AFMR患者术后应加强AF监测,以改善长期预后。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Reviews in cardiovascular medicine
Reviews in cardiovascular medicine 医学-心血管系统
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
3.70%
发文量
377
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: RCM is an international, peer-reviewed, open access journal. RCM publishes research articles, review papers and short communications on cardiovascular medicine as well as research on cardiovascular disease. We aim to provide a forum for publishing papers which explore the pathogenesis and promote the progression of cardiac and vascular diseases. We also seek to establish an interdisciplinary platform, focusing on translational issues, to facilitate the advancement of research, clinical treatment and diagnostic procedures. Heart surgery, cardiovascular imaging, risk factors and various clinical cardiac & vascular research will be considered.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书