OBJECTIVES Concomitant atrial fibrillation ablation during mitral valve (MV) surgery using radio frequency energy sources has been reported previously with excellent outcomes. However, data regarding the effectiveness of concomitant cryoablation remain limited. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of concomitant cryoablation in patients scheduled for MV surgery. METHODS Between 2012 and 2020, 242 adult patients who underwent MV surgery and concomitant cryoablation were included. Data on rhythm, medication status and clinical events were assessed at 3, 6 and 12 months, then annually thereafter. RESULTS Early mortality was 0.4%. The mean follow-up period duration was 43.9 months. The survival rates at 1, 3 and 5 years were 97.3%, 94.3% and 87.7%, respectively. The rates of freedom from atrial arrhythmia paroxysms at 1, 3 and 5 years were 79.0%, 64.0% and 60.5%, respectively. Atrial arrhythmia recurrence was associated with isolated left atrial lesion set (P = 0.038), large right atrial size (P = 0.002), lower surgeon experience (P = 0.003) and atrial fibrillation paroxysms in the early postoperative period (P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS Concomitant cryoablation during MV surgery is a safe and reproducible technique. The procedure provides acceptable freedom from atrial arrhythmias recurrences during long-term follow-up. The biatrial lesion set has advantages over the left atrium pattern in terms of atrial arrhythmias freedom. Surgeon experience significantly influences atrial fibrillation ablation success. Randomized trials are needed to compare radiofrequency and cryoablation.

中文翻译：

---

二尖瓣手术中伴随冷冻消融治疗心房颤动的结果

目标 先前已报道使用射频能量源在二尖瓣 (MV) 手术期间同时进行心房颤动消融，并具有良好的结果。然而，关于伴随冷冻消融的有效性的数据仍然有限。本研究旨在评估联合冷冻消融对计划进行 MV 手术的患者的疗效。方法 2012 年至 2020 年间，纳入 242 名接受 MV 手术和伴随冷冻消融的成年患者。在 3、6 和 12 个月评估节律、药物状态和临床事件的数据，然后每年评估一次。结果 早期死亡率为 0.4%。平均随访时间为 43.9 个月。1、3和5年的生存率分别为97.3%、94.3%和87.7%。1、3、5年无房性心律失常发作率为79.0%，分别为 64.0% 和 60.5%。房性心律失常复发与孤立的左心房病变组 (P = 0.038)、右心房大小 (P = 0.002)、外科医生经验低 (P = 0.003) 和术后早期心房颤动发作 (P = 0.002) 相关。结论 在 MV 手术期间同时进行冷冻消融是一种安全且可重复的技术。该程序在长期随访期间提供了可接受的房性心律失常复发自由度。双心房病变组在房性心律失常自由度方面优于左心房模式。外科医生经验显着影响心房颤动消融成功。需要随机试验来比较射频和冷冻消融。038)、右心房大小 (P = 0.002)、外科医生经验较低 (P = 0.003) 和术后早期心房颤动发作 (P = 0.002)。结论 在 MV 手术期间同时进行冷冻消融是一种安全且可重复的技术。该程序在长期随访期间提供了可接受的房性心律失常复发自由度。双心房病变组在房性心律失常自由度方面优于左心房模式。外科医生经验显着影响心房颤动消融成功。需要随机试验来比较射频和冷冻消融。038)、右心房大小 (P = 0.002)、外科医生经验较低 (P = 0.003) 和术后早期心房颤动发作 (P = 0.002)。结论 在 MV 手术期间同时进行冷冻消融是一种安全且可重复的技术。该程序在长期随访期间提供了可接受的房性心律失常复发自由度。双心房病变组在房性心律失常自由度方面优于左心房模式。外科医生经验显着影响心房颤动消融成功。需要随机试验来比较射频和冷冻消融。结论 在 MV 手术期间同时进行冷冻消融是一种安全且可重复的技术。该程序在长期随访期间提供了可接受的房性心律失常复发自由度。双心房病变组在房性心律失常自由度方面优于左心房模式。外科医生经验显着影响心房颤动消融成功。需要随机试验来比较射频和冷冻消融。结论 在 MV 手术期间同时进行冷冻消融是一种安全且可重复的技术。该程序在长期随访期间提供了可接受的房性心律失常复发自由度。双心房病变组在房性心律失常自由度方面优于左心房模式。外科医生经验显着影响心房颤动消融成功。需要随机试验来比较射频和冷冻消融。