학술논문
Hybrid convergent ablation versus endocardial catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Document Type
Report
Author
Source
Journal of Arrhythmia. December 2021, Vol. 37 Issue 6, p1459, 9 p.
Subject
Language
English
ISSN
1880-4276
Abstract
Abbreviations INTRODUCTION Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common arrhythmia and continues to be a worldwide health burden.[sup.1] The prevalence of AF in the United States is rising, with 12.1 [...]
: Introduction: Endocardial catheter ablation (ECA) for atrial fibrillation (AF) has limited efficacy. Hybrid convergent procedure (HCP) with both epicardial and endocardial ablation is a novel strategy for AF treatment. In this meta‐analysis, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of HCP in AF ablation. Method: We performed a comprehensive literature search for studies that evaluated the efficacy and safety of HCP compared with ECA for AF. The primary outcome was freedom of atrial arrhythmia (AA). The secondary outcome was the periprocedural complication rate. Pooled relative risk (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using the random effects model. Results: A total of eight studies, including 797 AF patients (mean age: 60.7 ± 9.8 years, 366 patients with HCP vs. 431 patients with ECA alone), were included. HCP showed a higher rate of freedom of AA compared with ECA (RR: 1.48, 95% CI: 1.13–1.94, p =.004). However, HCP was associated with higher rates of periprocedural complications (RR: 3.64, 95% CI: 2.06–6.43; p =.00001). Moreover, the HCP had a longer procedure time and postprocedural hospital stay. Conclusions: Although hybrid ablation was associated with a higher success rate, this should be judged for increased periprocedural adverse events and extended hospital stay. Prospective large‐scale randomized trials are needed to validate these results.
: Introduction: Endocardial catheter ablation (ECA) for atrial fibrillation (AF) has limited efficacy. Hybrid convergent procedure (HCP) with both epicardial and endocardial ablation is a novel strategy for AF treatment. In this meta‐analysis, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of HCP in AF ablation. Method: We performed a comprehensive literature search for studies that evaluated the efficacy and safety of HCP compared with ECA for AF. The primary outcome was freedom of atrial arrhythmia (AA). The secondary outcome was the periprocedural complication rate. Pooled relative risk (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using the random effects model. Results: A total of eight studies, including 797 AF patients (mean age: 60.7 ± 9.8 years, 366 patients with HCP vs. 431 patients with ECA alone), were included. HCP showed a higher rate of freedom of AA compared with ECA (RR: 1.48, 95% CI: 1.13–1.94, p =.004). However, HCP was associated with higher rates of periprocedural complications (RR: 3.64, 95% CI: 2.06–6.43; p =.00001). Moreover, the HCP had a longer procedure time and postprocedural hospital stay. Conclusions: Although hybrid ablation was associated with a higher success rate, this should be judged for increased periprocedural adverse events and extended hospital stay. Prospective large‐scale randomized trials are needed to validate these results.