Hybrid atrial fibrillation ablation resulted in 89% freedom from atrial tachyarrhythmias off antiarrhythmic drugs compared to 41% with catheter ablation in patients with longstanding persistent atrial fibrillation.
RCT (n=41)
null
null
No
Is hybrid atrial fibrillation ablation effective and safe compared to catheter ablation for patients with persistent atrial fibrillation?
Thoracoscopic hybrid AF ablation is a valid and effective alternative to catheter ablation for patients with persistent forms of atrial fibrillation.
Effect estimate: RR 2.17 (95% CI 1.19-3.97)
Absolute Event Rate: 89% vs 41%
p-value: p=0.002
In this state-of-the art review on hybrid atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation, we briefly focus on the pathophysiology of AF, the rationale for the hybrid approach, its technical aspects and the efficacy and safety outcomes after hybrid AF ablation, both from meta-analyses and randomized control trial data. Also, we performed a systematic search to provide a provisional overview of real-world hybrid AF ablation efficacy and safety outcomes. Furthermore, we give an insight into the 'Maastricht approach', an approach that allows us to tailor the ablation procedure to the individual patient. Finally, we reflect on future perspectives with the objective to continue improving our thoracoscopic hybrid AF ablation approach. Based on the review of the available literature, we believe it is fair to state that thoracoscopic hybrid AF ablation is a valid alternative to catheter ablation for the treatment of patients with more persistent forms of AF.
Heijden et al. (Mon,) conducted a rct in Atrial fibrillation (n=41). Hybrid atrial fibrillation ablation vs. Catheter ablation was evaluated on Freedom from atrial tachyarrhythmias (ATA) off antiarrhythmic drugs (AAD) (RR 2.17, 95% CI 1.19-3.97, p=0.002). Hybrid atrial fibrillation ablation resulted in 89% freedom from atrial tachyarrhythmias off antiarrhythmic drugs compared to 41% with catheter ablation in patients with longstanding persistent atrial fibrillation.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: