Key result
Hybrid ablation improves AF freedom over catheter ablation in advanced disease, but carries ~7% major complication risk.
Why the study?
Procedural success rates of catheter ablation for persistent and long-standing persistent AF remain suboptimal due to lack of lesion transmurality and epicardial–endocardial dissociation, motivating evaluation of hybrid ablation combining epicardial surgical and endocardial catheter ablation.
Does hybrid ablation improve freedom from AF compared to catheter ablation alone in patients with persistent and long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation?
Does hybrid ablation improve freedom from AF compared to catheter ablation alone in patients with persistent and long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation?
Hybrid ablation is a reasonable treatment option for symptomatic, drug-refractory advanced AF, offering improved efficacy over catheter ablation alone at the cost of higher invasiveness and complication risk.
Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most commonly encountered arrhythmia, with a rapidly growing prevalence and significant cost to the global healthcare system. Left untreated, AF progresses over time from paroxysmal AF to persistent AF (perAF) and long-standing persistent AF (LS-perAF). AF is associated with significant mortality and morbidity by increasing the risk of developing cardiomyopathy, heart failure, dementia, stroke and systemic embolization. Endocardial catheter ablation (CA) targeting pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) alone is the most commonly employed treatment strategy for patients undergoing invasive treatment for all forms of AF. Despite technological improvements such as pulsed field ablation (PFA), procedural success rates in preventing AF recurrences in patients with perAF and LS-perAF remain suboptimal. A lack of lesion transmurality gives rise to epicardial–endocardial dissociation, which may contribute to AF recurrences. Hybrid ablation (HA) combines epicardial surgical ablation with endocardial CA. HA leads to greater freedom from AF in advanced AF compared to CA, and while existing data support the safety of HA, HA inherently is more invasive, requires a multidisciplinary approach, and has a 5–7.8% risk of major adverse events. HA is reasonable in patients with symptomatic, drug-refractory perAF or LS-perAF. Future directions include evaluating the role of novel operative technologies in HA.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hsieh et al. (2026) conducted a review in Persistent and Long-Standing Persistent Atrial Fibrillation. Hybrid ablation vs. Endocardial catheter ablation was evaluated. Hybrid ablation provides greater freedom from atrial fibrillation in advanced disease compared to catheter ablation, but carries a 5-7.8% risk of major adverse events.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: