SynthesisJournal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing2026
Hybrid versus endocardial ablation for persistent atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and Bayesian meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing, 2026. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe outcomes of endocardial catheter ablation in persistent atrial fibrillation (PsAF) and long-standing PsAF (LSPsAF) remain modest. Hybrid convergent ablation for AF comprises surgical epicardial ablation with concomitant or staged endocardial catheter ablation. Comparative studies remain limited.
objectivesTo systematically assess and compare the efficacy and safety of hybrid ablation (HA) and endocardial ablation (EA) in PsAF and LSPsAF.
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized and observational studies comparing HA and EA was performed, with Bayesian adjustment and covariate analysis. The primary outcome was atrial arrhythmia recurrence. Secondary outcomes included procedural-related complications and length of hospital stay.
resultsFifteen studies (including four randomized controlled trials) with 1671 patients (HA, 734; EA, 937) were analyzed. Study inclusion criteria and ablation lesion sets varied widely. Atrial arrhythmia recurrence irrespective of antiarrhythmic drug use was significantly lower in the HA group [relative risk (RR) 0.74 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59–0.94), I2 = 73%, P = 0.01]. This result was not different in Bayesian random-effects model [log RR −0.30 (95% CI −0.59, −0.04)]. On multivariate analysis, LSPsAF was the strongest independent predictor of arrhythmia recurrence. Complications were significantly higher in the HA group [log RR 1.03 (95% CI 0.68–1.37), I2 = 0%, P = 0.0001] as was length of stay [mean difference 3.22 days (95% CI 1.74–4.7 days), I2 = 97%, P < 0.0001].
conclusionsHybrid convergent ablation for AF results in lower atrial arrhythmia recurrence than endocardial catheter ablation, at the expense of higher acute complication rates and longer hospital stay.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41801607What 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.