Electrophysiological Perspectives on Hybrid Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation

Hybrid ablation for persistent atrial fibrillation: a narrative review

Background and Objective

Treatment for atrial fibrillation (AF) has evolved significantly, with pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) becoming an established treatment. However, the outcomes following catheter ablation for persistent AF remain unsatisfactory. Hybrid catheter-surgical ablation has emerged as a therapeutic approach for persistent AF, combining the strengths of both interventions. The purpose of this narrative review is to comprehensively examine the current state of knowledge regarding hybrid ablation for AF.

Methods

A thorough PubMed search using the terms "hybrid ablation", "atrial fibrillation", "catheter ablation", and "guideline on cardiology" within the timeframe of 1980 to 2024 resulted in 138,969 articles. Consensus on the selected articles was reached through a series of structured meetings and discussions.

Key Content and Findings

PVI has demonstrated higher sinus rhythm maintenance rates, especially for paroxysmal AF. However, the efficacy is not as high for persistent AF. Additional ablation strategies, such as linear ablation, complex fractionated atrial electrogram ablation, low voltage zone ablation as well as posterior wall isolation, lack consistent evidence of effectiveness. Hybrid ablation, involving collaboration between cardiac surgeons and electrophysiologists, presents a promising alternative for hard-to-treat AF. Recent studies report favorable outcomes of hybrid ablation, with atrial arrhythmia-free rates ranging from 53.5% to 76%, surpassing those of catheter ablation alone, which might result from better lesion durability or intervention for non-PV foci and left atrial appendage excision or closure during hybrid ablation. The rate of complications associated with hybrid ablation is higher than catheter ablation alone.

Conclusions

While favorable outcomes of hybrid ablation for persistent AF have been reported, it is not recommended for all AF patients due to its invasiveness compared to catheter ablation. Additionally, some patients with persistent AF maintain sinus rhythm with catheter ablation alone. More clinical data are needed to determine which patients are suitable candidates for hybrid ablation.

Hybrid atrial fibrillation ablation

In this state-of-the art review on hybrid atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation, we briefly focus on the pathophysiology of AF, the rationale for the hybrid approach, its technical aspects and the efficacy and safety outcomes after hybrid AF ablation, both from meta-analyses and randomized control trial data. Also, we performed a systematic search to provide a provisional overview of real-world hybrid AF ablation efficacy and safety outcomes. Furthermore, we give an insight into the 'Maastricht approach', an approach that allows us to tailor the ablation procedure to the individual patient. Finally, we reflect on future perspectives with the objective to continue improving our thoracoscopic hybrid AF ablation approach. Based on the review of the available literature, we believe it is fair to state that thoracoscopic hybrid AF ablation is a valid alternative to catheter ablation for the treatment of patients with more persistent forms of AF.

Clinical scores for outcomes of rhythm control or arrhythmia progression in patients with atrial fibrillation: a systematic review

Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) are commonly managed with rhythm control strategy, but the natural history of this common arrhythmia leads itself to progression from paroxysmal to persistent or permanent AF, and recurrences are evident despite rhythm control treatments using cardioversion or catheter ablation. Numerous clinical factors have been associated with outcomes of rhythm control or arrhythmia progression in patients with AF. The more common factors have been used to formulate risk stratification scores, to help predict the outcomes of rhythm control treatments or AF progression. This review article provides an overview on the published clinical risk scores related to outcomes of rhythm control strategy or AF progression.