Two-staged hybrid ablation of non-paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: clinical outcomes and functional improvements after 1 year

Budera, Petr; Osmančík, Pavel; Talavera, David Peñalver; Kraupnerová, Anna; Fojt, Richard; Zdarska, Jana; Vanek, Tomas; Straka, Zbyněk

doi:10.1093/icvts/ivx248

Cited by 13 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Hybrid procedures involving initial endocardial PVI followed by GP ablation at a later stage have been trialed on patients with persistent or long-standing persistent AF. The outcome of these procedures shows a high success rate of 93% and 82% at 12 month follow-up, respectively [ 119 , 120 ]. It is plausible that hybrid procedures may be more appropriate in treating these types of AF.…”

Section: Gp Ablation For Afmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ganglionated Plexi Ablation for the Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation

Avazzadeh

McBride

O’Brien³

et al. 2020

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common type of cardiac arrhythmia and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. The autonomic nervous system (ANS) plays an important role in the initiation and development of AF, causing alterations in atrial structure and electrophysiological defects. The intrinsic ANS of the heart consists of multiple ganglionated plexi (GP), commonly nestled in epicardial fat pads. These GPs contain both parasympathetic and sympathetic afferent and efferent neuronal circuits that control the electrophysiological properties of the myocardium. Pulmonary vein isolation and other cardiac catheter ablation targets including GP ablation can disrupt the fibers connecting GPs or directly damage the GPs, mediating the benefits of the ablation procedure. Ablation of GPs has been evaluated over the past decade as an adjunctive procedure for the treatment of patients suffering from AF. The success rate of GP ablation is strongly associated with specific ablation sites, surgical techniques, localization techniques, method of access and the incorporation of additional interventions. In this review, we present the current data on the clinical utility of GP ablation and its significance in AF elimination and the restoration of normal sinus rhythm in humans.

show abstract

Section: Gp Ablation For Afmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ganglionated Plexi Ablation for the Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation

Avazzadeh

McBride

O’Brien³

et al. 2020

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Hybrid ablation has shown good results in the treatment of PsAF and LSPF 8–10 . Hybrid ablation combines the advantages of minimally invasive surgical ablation and catheter ablation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Hybrid ablation combines the advantages of minimally invasive surgical ablation and catheter ablation. Surgical ablation equipment is used to achieve the effect of ablation line continuity and permeability, and then the catheter is used to “modify” the line and other endocardium‐triggered matrix ablations, which improves the integrity and reliability of the ablation line 3,8,11 . In recent years, many studies have explored the efficacy and safety of hybrid ablation in the treatment of patients with nonparoxysmal AF 8–10,12,13 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[5][6][7] Hybrid ablation has shown good results in the treatment of PsAF and LSPF. [8][9][10] Hybrid ablation combines the advantages of minimally invasive surgical ablation and catheter ablation. Surgical ablation equipment is used to achieve the effect of ablation line continuity and permeability, and then the catheter is used to "modify" the line and other endocardium-triggered matrix ablations, which improves the integrity and reliability of the ablation line.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Surgical ablation equipment is used to achieve the effect of ablation line continuity and permeability, and then the catheter is used to "modify" the line and other endocardium-triggered matrix ablations, which improves the integrity and reliability of the ablation line. 3,8,11 In recent years, many studies have explored the efficacy and safety of hybrid ablation in the treatment of patients with nonparoxysmal AF. [8][9][10]12,13 Considering that a single study could not provide enough evidence to guide practice, we conducted a meta-analysis with the purpose of providing further information on the effectiveness and safety of hybrid ablation as a first-line treatment for patients with PsAF and LSPF.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Hybrid ablation procedure for the treatment of nonparoxysmal atrial fibrillation: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Hao

Yu-bao

Chen

et al. 2022

Pacing Clinical Electrophis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Hybrid ablation combines the advantages of surgical and catheter ablation. Many studies have explored the efficiency and safety of hybrid ablation in patients with nonparoxysmal AF. Methods We systematically searched for prospective controlled trials that compared hybrid ablation with catheter/surgical ablation in PubMed, Web of Science, Wiley Library, and CNKI. Our main assessment indicators included maintenance of sinus rhythm (SR) without antiarrhythmic drugs for more than 12 months, major adverse events (MAEs), procedure time and fluoroscopy time. Results Of 1214 identified studies, five were eligible and were included in our analysis (N = 451 participants). The pooled results showed that hybrid ablation was more effective in maintaining SR than a single procedure (surgical ablation or catheter ablation) (OR = 2.52, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.63–3.89, p < .001). Little significant heterogeneity was revealed (p = .32 for heterogeneity, I2 = 14%). More MAEs occurred in the hybrid group than in the single procedure group (OR = 7.47, 95% CI: 1.90–29.41, p = .004; I2 = 0%). Two trials reported the procedure and fluoroscopy times, and the procedure time for hybrid ablation was significantly longer than that of a single procedure (mean difference = 107.42, 95% CI: 88.62 to 126.22, p < .001; I2 = 82%). There was no significant difference in fluoroscopy time between the 2 groups (mean difference = –1.00, 95% CI: –5.37 to 3.36, p = .65; I2 = 12%). Conclusions Hybrid ablation was more effective than catheter ablation and was as effective as surgical ablation in patients with nonparoxysmal AF. Meanwhile, hybrid ablation, especially concomitant hybrid ablation, increases the incidence of MAEs and prolongs the procedure time.

show abstract