Safety and Efficacy of Edoxaban Versus Warfarin in Patients Undergoing a Thoracoscopic Ablation for Persistent Atrial Fibrillation

In Korea, 5% of patients older than 65 years and 10% of patients older than 80 have a history of atrial fibrillation (AF), which is often associated with sudden death and stroke. Medication and percutaneous radiofrequency catheter ablation are commonly used treatment modalities. Pharmacotherapy is primarily symptomatic treatment; moreover, the effect of conversion to a normal rhythm is minimal, and mainly aimed at stabilizing heart rate. Catheter ablation is associated with a high incidence of recurrence in chronic AF, and it is difficult to treat left atrial appendage, thereby preventing discontinuation of anticoagulation therapy post procedure. Thoracoscopic ablation is known to be a less invasive and more effective modality to treat patients with chronic atrial fibrillation. However, anticoagulation therapy is mandatory in the early postoperative period due to intracardiac thromboembolism associated with atrial stunning despite conversion to a sinus rhythm and resection of the left atrial appendage. Further investigation would be required to assess the efficacy and safety of novel oral anticoagulants such as edoxaban compared to that of warfarin for stroke prevention during the early postoperative period (6 months) after a thoracoscopic procedure. The need to maintain a constant level of blood coagulation and the potential development of complications such as hemorrhages are drawbacks associated with the use of warfarin. While novel oral anticoagulants such as edoxaban do have a role in atrial fibrillation, data regarding their effectiveness and incidence of complications after arrhythmia surgery do not exist. In this study, we will compare warfarin and edoxaban with respect to safety and efficacy, after they are used for 6 months following thoracoscopic ablation in patients with chronic atrial fibrillation