Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Hybrid convergent ablation versus endocardial catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Hybrid convergent ablation versus endocardial catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Do you wish to request the book?
Hybrid convergent ablation versus endocardial catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Hybrid convergent ablation versus endocardial catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
2021
Overview
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. Graphical showing the outcomes of our study. Although hybrid ablation was associated with a higher success rate, this should be judged for increased periprocedural adverse events and extended hospital stay.
