Trial reportEuropean journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery2025
Durable effectiveness and safety of hybrid ablation versus catheter ablation: 2-year results from the randomized CEASE-AF trial†.
Trial report in European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02695277 (Combined Endoscopic Epicardial and Percutaneous Endocardial Ablation Versus Repeated Catheter Ablation in Persistent and Longstanding Persistent Atrial Fibrillation), which is not on this map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
Combined Endoscopic Epicardial and Percutaneous Endocardial Ablation Versus Repeated Catheter Ablation in Persistent and Longstanding Persistent Atrial Fibrillation
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Building a surgical atrial fibrillation program: Programmatic evolution, safety, and three-year rhythm outcomes of hybrid ablation.Surgery open science · 2026Article
- Convergent Hybrid Ablation Versus Catheter Ablation in Patients With Persistent Atrial Fibrillation and Heart Failure: HALT AF Study Protocol and Rationale for a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2026Article
- 1- and 2-stage hybrid atrial fibrillation ablation using a biparietal irrigated radiofrequency clamp: A dual-center cohort analysis.Heart rhythm O2 · 2026Article
- Evolution of Energy Sources in Surgical Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation: Current Technology and Future Directions.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
- Beyond the Maze: Hybrid Ablation and Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion in Cardiac Surgery: Evidence Synthesis and the MESAGE Study Protocol.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
- Catheter Ablation for Persistent Atrial Fibrillation: Rationale, Evidence, and Contemporary Strategies Beyond Pulmonary Veins.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Mini- and Micro-Invasive Approaches in Cardiac Surgery: Current Techniques, Outcomes, and Future Perspectives.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
- Targeting the Substrate: Mechanism-Based Ablation Strategies for Persistent Atrial Fibrillation.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThe CEASE-AF trial demonstrated that epicardial-endocardial hybrid ablation (HA) had superior effectiveness compared to endocardial catheter ablation (CA) for non-paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF), without significantly increasing major complications during a 12-month period. Most contemporary AF ablation trials have not evaluated durability beyond 12 months. Therefore, 24-month effectiveness and safety of HA and CA are compared.
methodsCEASE-AF is a prospective, multicentre, randomized trial. Patients 18-75 years of age with symptomatic, drug refractory persistent AF and left atrial diameter >4.0 cm or long-standing persistent AF were randomized 2:1 to HA (posterior wall and pulmonary vein isolation with left atrial appendage exclusion) or CA (pulmonary vein isolation). Secondary effectiveness was freedom from AF/atrial flutter/atrial tachycardia off class I/III anti-arrhythmic drugs except for those who previously failed at doses not exceeding those previously failed through a 24-month follow-up period. Major complications and reinterventions were evaluated.
resultsThe intention-to-treat population was 102 patients with HA and 52 patients with CA. Seventy-five percent were male, 80.5% had persistent AF and 19.5% had long-standing persistent AF, with a mean age of 60.7 ± 7.9 years. Effectiveness for 24 months was 66.3% (63/95) with HA and 33.3% (17/51) with CA [absolute difference 33.0% (95% confidence interval 14.3%, 48.3%; P < 0.001)]. Major complication rates were 10.8% (11/102) with HA and 9.6% (5/52) with CA (P = 1.0), and fewer patients had reinterventions after HA than CA [18.9% (18/95) vs 52.9% (27/51), P < 0.001].
conclusionsCEASE-AF demonstrated that the 32.4% absolute benefit of HA over CA for 12 months was durable for 24 months at 33% with continued similar safety rates and fewer reinterventions after HA (funded by AtriCure, Inc.; NCT02695277). CLINICALTRIALS.GOV REGISTRATION: NCT02695277.
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.