Long-term outcome of thoracoscopic ablation and radiofrequency catheter ablation for persistent atrial fibrillation as a de novo procedure

AIMS: Limited data are available regarding the efficacy of thoracoscopic ablation as the first procedure for persistent atrial fibrillation (AF). We sought to compare the long-term efficacy of thoracoscopic ablation vs. radiofrequency (RF) catheter ablation as the first procedure for persistent AF. METHODS AND RESULTS: Between February 2011 and December 2020, 575 patients who underwent ablation for persistent AF were studied. Among them, thoracoscopic ablation was performed in 281 patients, RF catheter ablation in 228, and hybrid ablation in 66. Rhythm, clinical, and safety outcomes during 7-year follow-up were compared. The patients who underwent thoracoscopic ablation were older, had a higher prevalence of stroke, and had a larger left atrial volume than those who underwent RF catheter ablation. In the propensity score-matched population (n = 306), incidences of atrial tachyarrhythmia recurrence were 51.4% in the thoracoscopic ablation group and 62.5% in the RF catheter ablation group [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.869, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.618–1.223, P = 0.420]. Stroke and total procedural adverse events were not significantly different between thoracoscopic and RF catheter ablation (2.7 vs. 2.5%, P = 0.603, and 7.1 vs. 4.8%, P = 0.374, respectively). The hybrid ablation group showed similar rhythm outcomes compared with both the thoracoscopic and the RF catheter ablation groups. At the redo procedure, pulmonary vein gaps were more frequently observed in the RF catheter ablation group (32.6%) than in the thoracoscopic ablation group (7.9%) and in the hybrid ablation group (8.8%) (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: As a first procedure in persistent AF, thoracoscopic ablation and RF catheter ablation showed comparable efficacy, clinical, and safety outcomes during long-term follow-up.