A major drawback for a monolateral right-sided approach was the lack of selleck chemicals opportunity to exclude or occlude the left atrial appendage safely. Since the left atrial appendage is largely responsible for thrombo-embolic events in patients with atrial fibrillation, and can be part of the substrate responsible for atrial fibrillation, it could be preferable to occlude or exclude the left atrial appendage

in a subgroup of atrial fibrillation patients. We therefore developed a technique with a monolateral left-sided Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical approach for patients when isolation and exclusion of the left atrial appendage were deemed necessary. Freedom of atrial fibrillation at 1 year was 73% for the combined group of right- and left-sided

selleck chemical interventions. A complementary Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical endocardial approach was performed at 6 months in 18 patients.7 Since the success rate at 2-year follow-up was unsatisfactory,8 we changed the energy source from microwave to monopolar radiofrequency energy. Realizing that the concept of an epicardial box lesion had distinct limitations and was difficult to achieve on a beating heart (epicardial fat, heat-sink effect, power delivery of a monopolar ablation device), we combined Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical the surgical procedure with a simultaneous endocardial electrophysiology procedure. A single-session hybrid atrial fibrillation procedure was born. For the first time, we could study the effect of an epicardial ablation on the endocardium in a human being as well as see the epicardial effects

of an endocardial ablation, during Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical the same procedure. Using this approach we could demonstrate that after Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical epicardial creation of a box lesion with microwave or radiofrequency there was a conduction delay from the pulmonary veins and the posterior wall of the left atrium, but no exit or entrance block. This incomplete epicardial surgical ablation line necessitated a complementary endocardial isolation of one or more pulmonary veins and/or the roof and inferior line. The importance of these findings was Cilengitide twofold: first, we proved that the concept of combining a percutaneous endocardial approach with a thoracoscopic epicardial approach was safe and technically feasible and, secondly, that creation of a continuous transmural box lesion from the epicardium with a monopolar energy source was not possible. Even with satisfactory clinical results, transmurality and continuity of epicardial lesions could not be assured. This could probably explain the relatively low success rate at long-term follow-up. Again we had to change our strategy. We decided to focus first on an antral epicardial isolation of the pulmonary veins.