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
Catheter placement and stability are well‐known challenges in atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation. As a result, steerable sheaths (SS) were developed to improve catheter stabilization and maintain proper catheter–tissue contact. The purpose of this systematic review and meta‐analysis is to see if employing a SS influences procedure outcome.
Method
We performed a comprehensive literature search for studies that evaluated the efficacy and safety of SS compared to nonsteerable sheaths (NSS) in AF ablation. The primary outcome was the rate of atrial arrhythmia (AA) freedom by the time of the last follow‐up. The secondary outcomes were the procedure‐related complications and procedural characteristics. Risk ratio (RR) or the mean difference (MD) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using the random‐effects model.
Results
A total of 10 studies, including 967 AF patients (mean age: 59.2 ± 11.1 years, 516 patients managed with SS vs. 454 with NSS), were included. SS group showed a higher rate of freedom of AA compared to NSS (RR: 1.19; 95% CI 1.09–1.29; p < .001). Both techniques had similar rate for procedural‐related complication (RR: 1.09, 95% CI 0.50–2.39; p = .83). The SS strategy had a shorter procedure time (MD −10.6 [min], 95% CI −20.97, −0.20; p = .05) but comparable fluoroscopic and radiofrequency application times to the NSS group.
Conclusions
The SS for AF catheter ablation not only reduced the total procedure time but also significantly increased the rate of successful ablation while maintaining a similar safety profile when compared to the traditional NSS.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.