ArticleHeart rhythm O22025
In-hospital complications of hybrid vs endocardial atrial fibrillation ablation.
Article in Heart rhythm O2, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Hybrid atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation has been used to achieve rhythm control in AF management. It requires both epicardial and endocardial ablation. There is limited evidence regarding the safety of this procedure. Objective: The study aimed to compare in-hospital complication rates between hybrid AF ablation and endocardial catheter ablation (ECA) using a nationally representative dataset. Methods: Using the National Inpatient Sample, we identified patients who underwent AF ablation between 2017 and 2022. The cohort was divided into 2 groups; those who underwent ECA and those who underwent hybrid AF ablation. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs). Results: After propensity score weighting, hybrid ablation was associated with a significantly lower MACE rate (3.1% vs 5.6%, Conclusion: Hybrid AF ablation was associated with a significantly lower MACE rate compared with ECA, contrasting with earlier studies that suggested higher risk. This shift likely reflects improvements in technique and more refined patient selection. While rates of pulmonary and hemorrhagic complications were higher with hybrid ablation, transfusion needs remained similar between groups.
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.