Hybrid ablation for persistent/long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized controlled trials.
André RiveraMarcelo Antonio Pinheiro BragaCaique M P TernesDouglas Mesadri GewehrFelipe Villa MartignoniAlexander Dal FornoAndrew H LockeAndré d'AvilaPublished in: Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing (2024)
The efficacy and safety of hybrid ablation (HA) for patients with non-paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF) remain unclear. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing HA (endo-epicardial ablation) versus endocardial ablation (EA) for patients with persistent/long-standing persistent AF. Risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled. Our meta-analysis included 3 RCTs comprising 358 patients, of whom 233 (65.1%) were randomized to HA. Compared with EA, HA reduced the recurrence of atrial tachyarrhythmias (RR 0.53; 95% CI 0.41-0.69; p < 0.01) but had no subgroup interaction according to AF type (p = 0.90). There was no significant difference in major adverse events (RR 1.22; 95% CI 0.46-3.25; p = 0.68). Trial sequential analysis indicates that the observed effects can be deemed conclusive. In conclusion, in patients with persistent/long-standing persistent AF, HA substantially reduced the recurrence of atrial tachyarrhythmias. Notably, patients with long-standing persistent AF may benefit more from this ablation strategy.
Keyphrases
- atrial fibrillation
- catheter ablation
- left atrial
- oral anticoagulants
- left atrial appendage
- phase iii
- direct oral anticoagulants
- heart failure
- systematic review
- randomized controlled trial
- percutaneous coronary intervention
- phase ii
- end stage renal disease
- double blind
- coronary artery disease
- peritoneal dialysis
- newly diagnosed
- left ventricular
- placebo controlled