The convergent procedure versus catheter ablation alone in longstanding persistent atrial fibrillation: A single centre, propensity-matched cohort study

Convergent ablation for persistent atrial fibrillation: A UK multicentre perspective

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common sustained arrhythmia worldwide and remains a major cause of morbidity and mortality. Unfortunately, a significant proportion of patients have persistent AF, for which conventional catheter ablation is less effective. However, convergent ablation has emerged in recent years as a hybrid treatment targeting both the epicardium and endocardium in a multidisciplinary joint cardiothoracic and electrophysiology procedure, with promising efficacy outcomes in recent studies. This treatment is increasingly being performed in the United Kingdom. This review article discusses the rationale and evidence behind convergent ablation, along with factors that need to be considered when setting up a successful ablation service.

2024 European Heart Rhythm Association/Heart Rhythm Society/Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society/Latin American Heart Rhythm Society expert consensus statement on catheter and surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation

In the last three decades, ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) has become an evidence-based safe and efficacious treatment for managing the most common cardiac arrhythmia. In 2007, the first joint expert consensus document was issued, guiding healthcare professionals involved in catheter or surgical AF ablation. Mounting research evidence and technological advances have resulted in a rapidly changing landscape in the field of catheter and surgical AF ablation, thus stressing the need for regularly updated versions of this partnership which were issued in 2012 and 2017. Seven years after the last consensus, an updated document was considered necessary to define a contemporary framework for selection and management of patients considered for or undergoing catheter or surgical AF ablation. This consensus is a joint effort from collaborating cardiac electrophysiology societies, namely the European Heart Rhythm Association, the Heart Rhythm Society, the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society, and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society.

2024 European Heart Rhythm Association/Heart Rhythm Society/Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society/Latin American Heart Rhythm Society expert consensus statement on catheter and surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation

In the last three decades, ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) has become an evidence-based safe and efficacious treatment for managing the most common cardiac arrhythmia. In 2007, the first joint expert consensus document was issued, guiding healthcare professionals involved in catheter or surgical AF ablation. Mounting research evidence and technological advances have resulted in a rapidly changing landscape in the field of catheter and surgical AF ablation, thus stressing the need for regularly updated versions of this partnership which were issued in 2012 and 2017. Seven years after the last consensus, an updated document was considered necessary to define a contemporary framework for selection and management of patients considered for or undergoing catheter or surgical AF ablation. This consensus is a joint effort from collaborating cardiac electrophysiology societies, namely the European Heart Rhythm Association, the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the Asia Pacific HRS, and the Latin American HRS.

2024 European Heart Rhythm Association/Heart Rhythm Society/Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society/Latin American Heart Rhythm Society expert consensus statement on catheter and surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation

In the last three decades, ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) has become an evidence-based safe and efficacious treatment for managing the most common cardiac arrhythmia. In 2007, the first joint expert consensus document was issued, guiding healthcare professionals involved in catheter or surgical AF ablation. Mounting research evidence and technological advances have resulted in a rapidly changing landscape in the field of catheter and surgical AF ablation, thus stressing the need for regularly updated versions of this partnership which were issued in 2012 and 2017. Seven years after the last consensus, an updated document was considered necessary to define a contemporary framework for selection and management of patients considered for or undergoing catheter or surgical AF ablation. This consensus is a joint effort from collaborating cardiac electrophysiology societies, namely the European Heart Rhythm Association, the Heart Rhythm Society, the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society, and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society .

Selection of patients for hybrid ablation procedure

Catheter ablation for treatment of symptomatic non-paroxysmal atrial fibrillation remains challenging. Clinical failure and need for continued medical therapy or repeat ablation is common, especially in more advanced forms of atrial fibrillation. Hybrid ablation has emerged as a more effective and safe therapy than endocardial-only ablation particularly for longstanding persistent atrial fibrillation as demonstrated by the randomized controlled CONVERGE trial. Hybrid ablation requires collaboration of electrophysiologists and cardiac surgeons to develop specific workflows. This review describes the Hybrid Convergent approach in the context of available ablation options and offers guidance for workflow development and patient selection.

Catheter Ablation for the Management of Atrial Fibrillation: An Update of the Literature

Catheter ablation has been shown to be more effective at maintaining sinus rhythm and improving quality of life when compared to antiarrhythmic drugs. Radiofrequency and cryoablation are two effective methods. However, catheter-only ablation strategies have not consistently produced high success rates in treating longstanding and persistent AF patients. The emerging treatment of choice for such cases is hybrid ablation, which involves a multidisciplinary and minimally invasive approach to achieve surgical ablation of the direct posterior left atrial wall in combination with endocardial catheter ablation. Studies have shown promising results for the hybrid approach when compared with catheter ablation alone, but it is not without risks. Large and randomised studies are necessary to further evaluate these strategies for managing AF.

Mid term freedom from atrial fibrillation following hybrid ablation, a systematic review and meta analysis

INTRODUCTION

Atrial Fibrillation (AF) is a common tachyarrhythmia affecting 33 million people worldwide. Hybrid AF ablation utilises a surgical (epicardial) ablation followed by an endocardial catheter-based ablation. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to summarize the literature reporting mid-term freedom from AF following hybrid ablation.

METHODS

An electronic search of databases was performed to identify all relevant studies providing mid-term (2 year) outcomes following hybrid ablation for AF. The primary study outcome was to assess the mid-term freedom from AF following hybrid ablation, utilising the metaprop function on Stata® (Version 17.0, StataCorp, Texas, USA). Subgroup analysis was performed to assess the impact of various operative characteristics on mid-term freedom from AF. The secondary outcomes assessed mortality and procedural complication rate.

RESULTS

The search strategy identified 16 studies qualifying for inclusion in this meta-analysis, with 1242 patients in total. The majority of papers were retrospective cohort studies (15) and one study was a randomized control trial (RCT). The mean follow up was 31.5 ± 8.4 months. Following hybrid ablation, the overall mid-term freedom from AF was 74.6% and 65.4% for patients off antiarrhythmic drugs (AAD). Actuarial freedom from AF was 78.2%, 74.2% and 73.6% at 1, 2 and 3 years respectively. No significant differences in mid-term freedom from AF based epicardial lesion set (box vs pulmonary vein isolation) or Left atrial appendage/Ganglionated Plexus/Ligament of Marshall ablation or staged vs concomitant procedures. There were 12 deaths overall following the hybrid procedure with a pooled complication rate of 5.53%.

CONCLUSION

Hybrid AF ablation offers promising mid-term freedom from AF reported at a mean follow-up of 31.5 months. The overall complication rate remains low. Further analysis of high-quality studies with randomized data and long-term follow up will help verify these results.

Rhythm outcomes of minimally-invasive off-pump surgical versus catheter ablation in atrial fibrillation: A meta-analysis of reconstructed time-to-event data

BACKGROUND

Mid- and long-term rhythm outcomes of catheter ablation (CA) for atrial fibrillation (AF) are reported to be suboptimal. Minimally invasive surgical off-pump ablation (MISOA), including both thoracoscopic and trans-diaphragmatic approaches, has been developed to reduce surgical invasiveness and overcome on-pump surgery drawbacks. We sought to compare the efficacy and safety of MISOA and CA for AF treatment.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature was performed including studies comparing MISOA and CA. The primary endpoint was survival freedom from AF at follow-up after a 3-month blanking period. Subgroup analysis of the primary endpoint was performed according to the type of surgical incision and hybrid approach.

RESULTS

Freedom from AF at 4 years was 52.1% ± 3.2% vs 29.1% ± 3.5%, between MISOA and CA respectively (log-rank p < 0.001; Hazard Ratio: 0.60 [95%Confidence Interval (CI):0.50-0.72], p < 0.001). At landmark analysis, a significant improvement in rhythm outcomes was observed in the MISOA group after the 5th month of follow-up (2 months from the blanking period). The Odds Ratio between MISOA and CA of postoperative cerebrovascular accident incidence and postoperative permanent pacemaker implant (PPM) were 2.00 (95%CI:0.91-4.40, p = 0.084) and 1.55 (95%CI:0.61-3.95, p = 0.358), respectively. The incidence rate ratio of late CVA between MISOA and CA was 0.86 (95%CI:0.28-2.65, p = 0.787), while for late PPM implant was 0.45 (95%CI:0.11-1.78, p = 0.256).

CONCLUSIONS

The current meta-analysis suggests that MISOA provides superior rhythm outcomes when compared to CA in terms of sinus rhythm restoration. Despite the rhythm outcome superiority of MISOA, it is associated to higher postoperative complications compared to CA.

Hybrid epicardial-endocardial ablation for long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation: A subanalysis of the CONVERGE Trial

Background

Favorable clinical outcomes are difficult to achieve in long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation (LSPAF) with catheter ablation (CA). The CONVERGE (Convergence of Epicardial and Endocardial Ablation for the Treatment of Symptomatic Persistent Atrial FIbrillation) trial evaluated the effectiveness of hybrid convergent (HC) ablation vs endocardial CA.

Objective

The study sought to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of HC vs CA in the LSPAF subgroup from the CONVERGE trial.

Methods

The CONVERGE trial was a prospective, multicenter, randomized trial that enrolled 153 patients at 27 sites. A post hoc analysis was performed on LSPAF patients. The primary effectiveness was freedom from atrial arrhythmias off new or increased dose of previously failed or intolerant antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) through 12 months. The primary safety endpoint was major adverse event incidence through 30 days with HC. Key secondary effectiveness measures included (1) percent of patients achieving ≥90% AF burden reduction vs baseline and (2) AF freedom.

Results

Sixty-five patients (42.5% of total enrollment) had LSPAF; 38 in HC and 27 in CA. Primary effectiveness was 65.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 50.7%-80.9%) with HC vs 37.0% (95% CI 5.1%-52.4%) with CA (P = .022). Through 18 months, these rates were 60.5% (95% CI 50.0%-76.1%) with HC vs 25.9% (95% CI 9.4%-42.5%) with CA (P = .006). Secondary effectiveness rates were higher than CA with HC at 12 and 18 months. Freedom from atrial arrhythmias off AADs was 52.6% (95% CI 36.8%-68.5%) and 47.4% (95% CI 31.5%-63.2%) with HC at 12 and 18 months vs 25.9% (95% CI 9.4%-42.5%) and 22.2% (95% CI 6.5%-37.9%) with CA, respectively (12 months: P = .031; 18 months: P = .038). Three (7.9%) major adverse events occurred within 30 days of HC.

Conclusion

Post hoc analysis demonstrated effectiveness and acceptable safety of HC compared with CA in LSPAF.

Convergent ablation for persistent atrial fibrillation: outcomes from a single-centre real-world experience

OBJECTIVES

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is common and can cause significant morbidity and detriment to quality of life. Success rates for conventional catheter ablation are suboptimal in persistent AF (PsAF), especially when longstanding. Convergent hybrid ablation combines endoscopic surgical epicardial and endocardial catheter ablation. It offers promise in treating PsAF. We aimed to evaluate outcomes at our centre following convergent ablation.

METHODS

We conducted an observational study of patients undergoing ablation from 2012 to 2019 at a London cardiac centre. Sixty-seven patients underwent convergent ablation entailing epicardial ablation, mostly via sub-xiphoid access, followed by endocardial left atrial catheter ablation. Baseline and follow-up data were obtained retrospectively from clinical records. Primary outcome was freedom from AF on/off anti-arrhythmic drugs after 12-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes included freedom from AF over the entire follow-up, freedom from anti-arrhythmic drugs, freedom from atrial arrhythmias, symptom status, repeat ablation and complications.

RESULTS

At baseline, 80.6% had PsAF >1 year (80.6%), 49.3% had body mass index >30 kg/m2 at baseline and 19.4% had left ventricular ejection fraction of 40% or less. The median follow-up was 2.3 (1.4-3.7) years. Freedom from AF recurrence was 81.3% at 1 year and 61.5% over overall follow-up. Eleven patients (16.4%) required redo AF ablation. Prolonged AF duration was associated with increased recurrence at 12 months and duration >5 years with a shorter time to recurrence on Kaplan-Meier analysis, but this and other factors did not significantly impact the AF recurrence during the overall follow-up period.

CONCLUSIONS

Convergent ablation had good 1-year and overall success rates for treating PsAF. Our results in a diverse, real-world population support the potential of convergent ablation in patients with challenging to treat PsAF.

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

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.

A Chronicle of Hybrid Atrial Fibrillation Ablation Therapy: From Cox Maze to Convergent

The burden of AF is increasing in prevalence and healthcare resource usage in the UK and worldwide. It can result in impaired quality of life for affected patients, as well as increased risk of stroke, heart failure and mortality. A holistic, integrated approach to AF management is recommended, which may include a focus on reducing risk factors and on medical management with anticoagulation and anti-arrhythmic drugs. There are also various ablation strategies that may be considered when anti-arrhythmic drugs fail to alleviate symptoms and reduce AF burden. These ablation techniques range from standalone percutaneous endocardial catheter ablation to open surgical ablation procedures concomitant with cardiac surgery. More recently, hybrid ablation that combines aspects of both surgical and electrophysiologically targeted ablation has been described. This article reviews the evolution of ablation strategies, beginning with the origin of the Cox maze IV procedure and continuing to the recent hybrid convergent approach, and provides a summary of the associated outcomes.

Mapping Atrial Fibrillation After Surgical Therapy to Guide Endocardial Ablation

BACKGROUND

Surgical ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) can be effective, yet has mixed results. It is unclear which endocardial lesions delivered as part of hybrid therapy' will best augment surgical lesion sets in individual patients. We addressed this question by systematically mapping AF endocardially after surgical ablation and relating findings to early recurrence, then performing tailored endocardial ablation as part of hybrid therapy.

METHODS

We studied 81 consecutive patients undergoing epicardial surgical ablation (stage 1 hybrid), of whom 64 proceeded to endocardial catheter mapping and ablation (stage 2). Stage 2 comprised high-density mapping of pulmonary vein (PV) or posterior wall (PW) reconnections, low-voltage zones (LVZs), and potential localized AF drivers. We related findings to postsurgical recurrence of AF.

RESULTS

Mapping at stage 2 revealed PW isolation reconnection in 59.4%, PV isolation reconnection in 28.1%, and LVZ in 42.2% of patients. Postsurgical recurrence of AF occurred in 36 patients (56.3%), particularly those with long-standing persistent AF (P=0.017), but had no relationship to reconnection of PVs (P=0.53) or PW isolation (P=0.75) when compared with those without postsurgical recurrence of AF. LVZs were more common in patients with postsurgical recurrence of AF (P=0.002), long-standing persistent AF (P=0.002), advanced age (P=0.03), and elevated CHA₂DS₂-VASc (P=0.046). AF mapping revealed 4.4±2.7 localized focal/rotational sites near and also remote from PV or PW reconnection. After ablation at patient-specific targets, arrhythmia freedom at 1 year was 81.0% including and 73.0% excluding previously ineffective antiarrhythmic medications.

CONCLUSIONS

After surgical ablation, AF may recur by several modes particularly related to localized mechanisms near low voltage zones, recovery of posterior wall or pulmonary vein isolation, or other sustaining mechanisms. LVZs are more common in patients at high clinical risk for recurrence. Patient-specific targeting of these mechanisms yields excellent long-term outcomes from hybrid ablation.

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

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 without antiarrhythmic drugs for more than 12 months, major adverse events (MAEs), procedure time and fluoroscopy time.

RESULTS

Of 1214 identified studies, 5 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<0.001). Little significant heterogeneity was revealed (P = 0.32 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 = 0.004; 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 < 0.001; 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 = 0.65; 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. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Hybrid Convergent Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Hybrid Convergent ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) combines minimally invasive surgical (epicardial) and catheter (endocardial) ablation. The procedural goal is to achieve more extensive, enduring ablation of AF substrate around the pulmonary veins, posterior wall, and vestibule of the posterior wall left atrium.

Objective

To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on safety and effectiveness of contemporary Hybrid Convergent procedures.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, and manual searches identified primary research articles on Hybrid Convergent. Inclusion criteria focused on contemporary practices (epicardial ablation device and lesions). Clinical outcomes at 1 year or later follow-up, patient population, procedural details, and major adverse events (MAE) were recorded.

Results

Of 249 records, 6 studies (5 observational, 1 randomized controlled trial) including 551 patients were included. Endocardial energy sources included radiofrequency and cryoballoon. Hybrid Convergent ablation was mostly performed in patients with drug-refractory persistent and longstanding persistent AF. Mean preprocedural AF duration ranged between 2 and 5.1 years. Most patients (∼92%) underwent Hybrid Convergent in a single hospitalization. At 1 year follow-up or later, 69% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 61%–78%, n = 523) were free from atrial arrhythmias and 50% (95% CI: 42%–58%, n = 343) were free from atrial arrhythmias off antiarrhythmic drugs. Thirty-day MAE rate was 6% (95% CI: 3%–8%, n = 551).

Conclusion

Hybrid Convergent ablation is an effective ablation strategy for persistent and longstanding persistent AF. Contemporary procedural approaches and published strategies aim to mitigate complications reported in early experience and address delayed inflammatory effusions.

The Hybrid Convergent Procedure for Persistent and Long-Standing Persistent Atrial Fibrillation From an Electrophysiologist's Perspective

In atrial fibrillation (AF), the pulmonary veins (PV) are central to arrhythmogenicity and are targeted by PV isolation (PVI). As AF progresses, triggers become more prevalent in non-PV areas including the left atrial posterior wall (LAPW). Reported benefits of LAPW isolation in Cox-maze IV led to exploration of ablation strategies using endocardial catheters. However, no single approach to endocardial LAPW isolation exists. Relative success in comparison to PVI alone has been mixed. The hybrid convergent procedure was developed to combine minimally invasive surgical and electrophysiology techniques to accomplish effective PVI and LAPW isolation. Epicardial LAPW isolation is performed by a cardiothoracic surgeon followed by endocardial ablation by an electrophysiologist who ensures PVI completion and targets any remaining gaps. Safety and effectiveness of hybrid convergent was evaluated in the prospective, multi-center, randomized controlled trial, Convergence of Epicardial and Endocardial Ablation for the Treatment of Symptomatic Persistent AF (CONVERGE). CONVERGE compared the effectiveness of the hybrid convergent procedure to endocardial catheter ablation for treatment of drug-refractory persistent and longstanding persistent AF and demonstrated primary effectiveness of higher freedom from atrial arrhythmias absent new/increased dose previously failed/intolerant anti-arrhythmic drugs through 12 months compared to endocardial catheter ablation. Greater freedom from AF and proportion of patients experiencing ≥90% burden reduction with hybrid convergent ablation were seen through 18 months follow-up. Improved electrophysiology lab efficiency was demonstrated by the reduction in endocardial ablation time with addition of epicardial ablation. This multi-disciplinary heart team procedure may improve outcomes in difficult-to-treat patients with advanced AF. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Hybrid convergent ablation versus endocardial catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

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.

Hybrid Convergent Procedure for the Treatment of Persistent and Long-standing Persistent Atrial Fibrillation

Recent advances have been made in AF treatment, including the role of early rhythm control and landmark clinical trials using ablation therapy. However, some treatment gaps remain, including the creation of durable lesions outside the pulmonary veins and effective treatment of longstanding persistent AF. A novel epicardial-endocardial ablation approach - the hybrid convergent procedure - was developed to combine surgical and catheter ablation techniques into a collaborative, multidisciplinary approach to managing AF. In this review, the authors discuss recently published data on hybrid convergent ablation, including results of the CONVERGE clinical trial, in the context of current challenges to treatment of persistent and long-standing persistent AF. The review also aims to provide perspective on outstanding questions and future directions in this area.

Persistent Atrial Fibrillation: The Role of Left Atrial Posterior Wall Isolation and Ablation Strategies

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a global disease with rapidly rising incidence and prevalence. It is associated with a higher risk of stroke, dementia, cognitive decline, sudden and cardiovascular death, heart failure and impairment in quality of life. The disease is a major burden on the healthcare system. Paroxysmal AF is typically managed with medications or endocardial catheter ablation to good effect. However, a large proportion of patients with AF have persistent or long-standing persistent AF, which are more complex forms of the condition and thus more difficult to treat. This is in part due to the progressive electro-anatomical changes that occur with AF persistence and the spread of arrhythmogenic triggers and substrates outside of the pulmonary veins. The posterior wall of the left atrium is a common site for these changes and has become a target of ablation strategies to treat these more resistant forms of AF. In this review, we discuss the role of the posterior left atrial wall in persistent and long-standing persistent AF, the limitations of current endocardial-focused treatment strategies, and future perspectives on hybrid epicardial-endocardial approaches to posterior wall isolation or ablation.

The Year in Electrophysiology: Selected Highlights From 2020

This article is the third in an annual series for the Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia. The authors thank the Editor-in-Chief Dr. Kaplan, the Associate Editor-in-Chief Dr. Augoustides, and the editorial board for the opportunity to continue this series; namely, the highlights of the year that pertain to electrophysiology in relation to cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia. This third article focuses on the convergent procedure, His-bundle pacing, a comparison of subcutaneous and transvenous defibrillator therapies, the 2020 practice advisory update for the perioperative management of patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices, and a technology update regarding the Micra AV (Medtronic, Moundsview, MN), the EMPOWER leadless pacemaker (Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA), WiSE-CRT (EBR Systems, Sunnyvale, CA), the Extravascular Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator (Medtronic, Moundsview, MN), and the BAROSTIM NEO (CVRx Inc, Minneapolis, MN).

Combined epicardial and endocardial ablation for atrial fibrillation: Best practices and guide to hybrid convergent procedures

The absence of strategies to consistently and effectively address nonparoxysmal atrial fibrillation by nonpharmacological interventions has represented a long-standing treatment gap. A combined epicardial/endocardial ablation strategy, the hybrid Convergent procedure, was developed in response to this clinical need. A subxiphoid incision is used to access the pericardial space facilitating an epicardial ablation directed at isolation of the posterior wall of the left atrium. This is followed by an endocardial ablation to complete isolation of the pulmonary veins and for additional ablation as needed. Experience gained with the hybrid Convergent procedure during the last decade has led to the development and adoption of strategies to optimize the technique and mitigate risks. Additionally, a surgical and electrophysiology "team" approach including comprehensive training is believed critical to successfully develop the hybrid Convergent program. A recently completed randomized clinical trial indicated that this ablation strategy is superior to an endocardial-only approach for patients with persistent atrial fibrillation. In this review, we propose and describe best practice guidelines for hybrid Convergent ablation on the basis of a combination of published data, author consensus, and expert opinion. A summary of clinical outcomes, emerging evidence, and future perspectives is also given.

Initial experience with the convergent procedure for longstanding persistent atrial fibrillation: A 5 year dataset

In patients with longstanding persistent atrial fibrillation (AF), outcomes from catheter ablation remain suboptimal. The convergent procedure combines minimally invasive surgical ablation with subsequent catheter ablation, and may contribute towards maintenance of sinus rhythm in this patient group. We performed the convergent procedure on 43 patients with longstanding persistent AF from 2013–2018. Patients underwent clinical review at 3, 6, and 12 months and thereafter as necessitated by their symptoms. Our dataset describes patients’ baseline characteristics and rhythm control protocols, as well as outcomes including arrhythmia recurrence, the need for antiarrhythmic drugs, requirement for repeat rhythm control procedures, and complications. These data provide a real world insight into the risks and benefits of the convergent procedure in patients with longstanding persistent AF.