Atrial compartment operation for atrial fibrillation: to isolate the left atrium or not?

Background The atrial compartment operation was designed to convert atrial fibrillation (AF) to sinus rhythm with intentional preservation of the electrical connection between adjacent atrial compartments. However, incidental left atrial isolation was observed in some patients. This study compared the long-term clinical outcomes of left atrial isolation for AF with those with right and left atrial connection. Methods Twenty patients with mitral valve disease and chronic AF who underwent atrial compartment operation with successful sinus conversion were studied. Left atrial isolation was documented by local electrogram recording. When there were no signs of electrical connection between the left atrium and the rest of the heart, either during sinus rhythm or during stimulation from various atrial compartments, left atrial isolation was confirmed. All patients were followed by electrocardiogram and echocardiogram serial recordings. Clinical signs and symptoms of cardiac performance and thromboembolism were also examined. Results Seven patients showed an isolated left atrium and 13 patients had electrical connection between the right and left atria. The age, gender, AF duration, and underlying disease were not different between the two groups of patients. During a mean follow-up period of 66 ± 15 months, none of the patients with left atrial isolation showed recurrence of AF, although one experienced paroxysmal atrial flutter. However, 8 of the 13 patients with right and left atrial connection experienced recurrent atrial flutter/fibrillation (6 atrial flutter and 5 AF) (p = 0.058). The propensity for recurrent atrial flutter/fibrillation in these patients may be related to the conduction delay between the two atrial compartments, measured at 142 ± 48 ms. At the end of the follow-up period, all patients with left atrial isolation remained in normal sinus rhythm without antiarrhythmic drugs. Of the patients who had right and left atrial connection, 2 developed sustained AF and 1 developed atrial flutter. Patients with left atrial isolation showed a decreased transmitral “A” flow compared with those with right and left atrial connection. Postoperative left atrial diameter and clinical functional class did not differ between patients with and without left atrial isolation. The incidence of embolization observed in both treatment groups did not differ significantly: 14% (1/7) in patients with left atrial isolation and 8% (1/13) in patients with right and left atrial connection (p> 0.05 between the groups). Conclusions Left atrial isolation confers a better arrhythmia outcome but at the expense of poorer mechanical performance as compared with preserved electrical connection between the two atria. Nonetheless, all patients remain at risk for systemic embolization. Therefore, modifications of current surgical incisions for AF are needed.