ArticleJournal of arrhythmia2026
Hybrid Thoracoscopic-Endocardial Versus Endocardial Catheter Ablation for Persistent Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Article in Journal of arrhythmia, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Hybrid ablation (HA) addresses the limitations of endocardial catheter ablation (CA) in patients with persistent, long-standing atrial fibrillation (AF). This review compares hybrid thoracoscopic-endocardial ablation with endocardial CA in this population to evaluate rhythm-control outcomes and procedural safety. Methods: Randomized controlled trials and observational studies comparing HA with CA in adults with non-paroxysmal AF were identified through searches of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases (November 2025). The review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42024600526). Primary outcomes included freedom from AF, any atrial arrhythmia, use of antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs), arrhythmia recurrence, and repeat ablation. Results: Eight studies (907 patients: 478 HA; 429 CA) were included. Compared to CA, HA did not significantly reduce AF (OR 2.38; 95% CI 0.66-8.65) or arrhythmia recurrence (OR 1.66; 95% CI 0.31-9.06). HA significantly reduced any atrial arrhythmia (OR 3.36; 95% CI 2.16-5.23) and AADs (OR 3.25; 95% CI 2.20-4.82) and repeat ablation rates (OR 0.28; 95% CI 0.09-0.90). HA increased risk of significant complications (OR 2.73; 95% CI 1.18-6.27) despite a significantly shorter fluoroscopy time. Heterogeneity reflected variations in lesion sets, epicardial energy modality, surgical access, timing, and comparator CA strategies. Recent randomized trials show comparable safety profiles for HA and CA when hybrid procedures are performed in experienced multidisciplinary programs. Conclusion: HA offers better rhythm control than CA in persistent AF, although it involves greater procedural complexity. In appropriately selected patients and institutions with established hybrid expertise, HA is an effective rhythm-control strategy that yields clinically significant benefits.
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.