SynthesisJournal of cardiothoracic surgery2026
Minimally invasive thoracoscopic surgical ablation and hybrid ablation in AF patients: results from a single-arm systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of cardiothoracic surgery, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAtrial fibrillation (AF) is the most frequent cardiac arrhythmia in adults, with presentations from asymptomatic to severe cardiovascular morbidities. Cardiac ablation treats patients resistant to antiarrhythmic drugs (AAD) using approaches such as bilateral surgical ablation, which permits targeting of superior vena cava lesions but entails longer procedures and higher complication risk, and hybrid ablation that combines epicardial and endocardial techniques.
methodWe performed a meta-analysis per PRISMA guidelines, including observational and interventional single-arm studies of patients undergoing bilateral surgical or hybrid ablation in single- and double-setting subgroups. Studies were selected by predefined criteria, and data were extracted independently by 12 investigators. Searches covered multiple databases up to March 29, 2025.
resultThirty-two studies with 1,871 patients were evaluated. Overall complication rates were 0.11 (95% CI: 0.08-0.14) for surgical ablation and 0.13 (95% CI: 0.095-0.17) for hybrid ablation, with no significant subgroup difference (p = 0.093). Arrhythmia-free rates were 0.81 (95% CI: 0.69-0.89) for surgical and 0.76 (95% CI: 0.70-0.85) for hybrid ablation (p = 0.305). Mean operative times were 160.9 min (95% CI: 135 - 186.9) for surgical and 192.65 min (95% CI: 109.3-275.9) for hybrid ablation (p = 0.069). Bleeding rates were 0.03 (95% CI: 0.02-0.04) and 0.049 (95% CI: 0.03-0.07), respectively (p = 0.06). Mortality, stroke, conversion to sternotomy, and hospital length of stay showed no significant differences.
conclusionSurgical ablation yielded a slightly higher arrhythmia-free rate and fewer total complications, while hybrid ablation had shorter operative time; subgroup (single vs. double setting) differences were not significant.
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.