Why the study?
Hybrid ablation was developed to combine epicardial and endocardial techniques for AF, but an overview focusing on lesion transmurality and validation is needed.
A hybrid ablation approach combining epicardial and endocardial techniques may provide an optimal, tailored strategy for treating complex atrial fibrillation by ensuring lesion transmurality.
Substrate complexity informs evolving ablation strategies in persistent AF; leaves open optimal lesion sets pending prospective trials.
Therapeutic ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) has evolved significantly with progressive advancements in technology and surgical instruments. With the goal of minimizing surgical morbidity while maintaining the benefits of the traditional Cox-Maze procedure, surgical ablation for AF has undergone significant modifications. Most recently, an increased understanding of substrate complexity, predominantly in patients with persistent or long-standing persistent AF, has led to the development of a synergistic hybrid approach. The hybrid approach attempts to combine the benefits of epicardial ablation and catheter-based endocardial ablation in order to overcome the shortcomings associated with each technique alone. Importantly, the aid of electrophysiological intervention has provided new opportunities for evaluating lesion transmurality both acutely and in a staged approach. Therefore, the hybrid procedure may provide the optimal approach for the surgical treatment of AF, with the potential to tailor procedural treatment according to the patient's specific needs. In this review, we aim to provide an overview of current surgical techniques, including the implications of this novel hybrid approach in the management of AF and improving procedural outcomes. Recent findings from published studies are highlighted with a primary focus on the importance of lesion transmurality and validation in a hybrid setting.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hassan et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: