Hybrid convergent ablation versus endocardial catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised control trials and propensity matched studies

Abstract

Abstract Introduction Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common arrhythmia. Hybrid convergent ablation (HCA) is an emerging procedure for treating longstanding AF with promising results. HCA consists of a subxiphoid, surgical ablation followed by completion endocardial ablation. This meta-analysis of randomized control trials (RCT’s) and propensity score-matched studies aims to examine the efficacy and safety of HCA compared to endocardial catheter ablation (ECA) alone on patients with AF. Methods This review was written in accordance with preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses recommendations and guidance. The primary outcome for the analysis was freedom from AF (FFAF) at final follow up. Secondary outcomes were mortality and significant complications such as tamponade, sternotomy, esophageal injury, atrio-esophageal fistulae post procedurally. Results Four studies where included, with a total of 233 patients undergoing HCA and 189 patients undergoing ECA only. Pooled analysis demonstrated that HCA cohorts had significantly higher rates of FFAF than ECA cohorts, with an OR of 2.78 (95% CI 1.82–4.24, P < 0.01, I2 = 0). Major post-operative complications were observed in significantly more patients in the HCA group, with an OR of 5.14 (95% CI 1.70–15.54, P < 0.01). There was only one death reported in the HCA cohorts, with no deaths in the ECA cohort. Conclusion HCA is associated with a significantly higher FFAF than ECA, however, it is associated with increased post-procedural complications. There was only one death in the HCA cohort. Large RCT’s comparing the HCA and ECA techniques may further validate these results.

Keywords

• Hybrid ablation
• Convergent procedure
• Atrial fibrillation
• Systematic review