Sequential hybrid ablation vs. surgical CryoMaze alone for treatment of atrial fibrillation: results of multicentre randomized controlled trial

Figures

• 

  Figure 1. CONSORT diagram of the SURHYB trial. RFCA in the HG and CryoMaze in the SG were considered INDEX procedures. ICM, implantable cardiac monitor.

• 

  Figure 2. The cumulative rates for the primary efficacy endpoint (AF/AT >6 min). Fine–Gray curves are plotted for SG and HG. All-cause death was used as a competing risk event to assess the difference between the SG and the HG. HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval.

• 

  Figure 3. Subgroup analysis for the primary efficacy endpoint. The forest plot derived from Cox regression analysis shows HR estimates (squares) with 95% CI (horizontal bars) for the treatment effects (HG vs. SG) in prespecified subgroups. The widths of the CI and P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. No apparent heterogeneity of effects across subgroups using treatment-by-covariate terms was observed. AF, atrial fibrillation; BMI, body mass index; CAD, coronary artery disease; CI, confidence interval; Cryo-Ar, argon-based cryoablation; Cryo-N, nitrogen-based cryoablation; HG, hybrid group; LA, left atrium; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; NYHA, New York Heart Association classification of heart failure; SG, surgery group.

• 

  Figure 4. The cumulative rates for the primary clinical endpoint (a composite endpoint of hospitalization for AF/AT recurrence, worsening of heart failure, cardioembolic event, or major bleeding). Legend and the abbreviations are the same as in Figure 2.

• 

  Figure 5. Decomposition of the primary clinical endpoint. The forest plot derived from Cox regression analysis shows HR estimates (squares) with 95% CI (horizontal bars) for the treatment effects (HG vs. SG) for the composite primary clinical endpoint and individual components of the primary clinical endpoint. Data are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Absolute and relative frequencies of the respective events are also shown. CI, confidence interval; HG, hybrid group; SG, surgery group.

• 

  Figure 6. Subgroup analysis for the primary clinical endpoint. The forest plot derived from Cox regression analysis shows HR estimates (squares) with 95% CI (horizontal bars) for the treatment effects (HG vs. SG) in prespecified subgroups. The widths of the CI and P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. AF, atrial fibrillation; BMI, body mass index; CAD, coronary artery disease; CI, confidence interval; Cryo-Ar, argon-based cryoablation; Cryo-N, nitrogen-based cryoablation; HG, hybrid group; LA, left atrium; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; NYHA, New York Heart Association classification of heart failure; SG, surgery group.

• 

  Figure 7. Hazard ratios for the secondary clinical endpoints. The forest plot derived from Cox regression analysis shows HR estimates (squares) with 95% CI (horizontal bars) for the treatment effect (HG vs. SG) for individual secondary clinical endpoints. Data are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Absolute and relative frequencies of the respective events are also shown. CI, confidence interval; HG, hybrid group; SG, surgery group.