ReviewJournal of thoracic disease2024
Hybrid ablation for persistent atrial fibrillation: a narrative review.
Review in Journal of thoracic disease, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Minimally invasive thoracoscopic surgical ablation and hybrid ablation in AF patients: results from a single-arm systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Atrial fibrillation: from pathogenesis to novel treatment options.Molecular biomedicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objective: Treatment for atrial fibrillation (AF) has evolved significantly, with pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) becoming an established treatment. However, the outcomes following catheter ablation for persistent AF remain unsatisfactory. Hybrid catheter-surgical ablation has emerged as a therapeutic approach for persistent AF, combining the strengths of both interventions. The purpose of this narrative review is to comprehensively examine the current state of knowledge regarding hybrid ablation for AF. Methods: A thorough PubMed search using the terms "hybrid ablation", "atrial fibrillation", "catheter ablation", and "guideline on cardiology" within the timeframe of 1980 to 2024 resulted in 138,969 articles. Consensus on the selected articles was reached through a series of structured meetings and discussions. Key Content and Findings: PVI has demonstrated higher sinus rhythm maintenance rates, especially for paroxysmal AF. However, the efficacy is not as high for persistent AF. Additional ablation strategies, such as linear ablation, complex fractionated atrial electrogram ablation, low voltage zone ablation as well as posterior wall isolation, lack consistent evidence of effectiveness. Hybrid ablation, involving collaboration between cardiac surgeons and electrophysiologists, presents a promising alternative for hard-to-treat AF. Recent studies report favorable outcomes of hybrid ablation, with atrial arrhythmia-free rates ranging from 53.5% to 76%, surpassing those of catheter ablation alone, which might result from better lesion durability or intervention for non-PV foci and left atrial appendage excision or closure during hybrid ablation. The rate of complications associated with hybrid ablation is higher than catheter ablation alone. Conclusions: While favorable outcomes of hybrid ablation for persistent AF have been reported, it is not recommended for all AF patients due to its invasiveness compared to catheter ablation. Additionally, some patients with persistent AF maintain sinus rhythm with catheter ablation alone. More clinical data are needed to determine which patients are suitable candidates for hybrid ablation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.