Pearman Charles M, Poon Shi S, Bonnett Laura J, Haldar Shouvik, Wong Tom, Mediratta Neeraj, Gupta Dhiraj
Department of Cardiology, Liverpool Heart and Chest Hospital.
Division of Cardiovascular Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, The University of Manchester.
Arrhythm Electrophysiol Rev. 2017 Dec;6(4):202-209. doi: 10.15420/aer/2017.29.2.
Maintaining sinus rhythm in patients with non-paroxysmal AF is an elusive goal. Some suggest that hybrid ablation, combining minimally invasive epicardial surgical ablation with endocardial catheter ablation, may be more effective than either modality alone. However, randomised trials are lacking. We investigated whether hybrid ablation is more effective than epicardial ablation alone at preventing recurrent AF by performing a systematic review and meta-analysis. The review was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD42016043389). MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for studies of standalone minimally invasive epicardial ablation of AF and/or hybrid ablation, identifying 41 non-overlapping studies comprising 2737 patients. A random-effects meta-analysis, meta-regression and sensitivity analysis were performed. Single-procedure survival free from atrial arrhythmias without antiarrhythmic drugs was similar between epicardial-alone and hybrid approaches at 12 months (epicardial alone 71.5 %; [95 % CI 66.1-76.9], hybrid 63.2 %; [95 % CI 51.5-75.0]) and 24 months (epicardial alone 68.5 %; [95 % CI 57.7-79.3], hybrid 57.0 %; [95 % CI 33.6-80.4]). Freedom from atrial arrhythmias with AADs and rates of unplanned additional catheter ablations were also similar between groups. Major complications occurred more often with hybrid ablation (epicardial alone 2.9 %; [95 % CI 1.9-3.9], hybrid 7.3 %; [95 % CI 4.2-10.5]). Meta-regression suggested that bipolar radiofrequency energy and thoracoscopic access were associated with greater efficacy, but adjusting for these factors did not unmask any difference between epicardial-alone and hybrid ablation. Hybrid and epicardial ablation alone appear to be equally effective treatments for AF, although hybrid ablation may be associated with higher complication rates. These data derived from observational studies should be verified with randomised data.
在非阵发性房颤患者中维持窦性心律是一个难以实现的目标。一些人认为,将微创的心外膜手术消融与心内膜导管消融相结合的杂交消融术可能比单独使用任何一种方式更有效。然而,目前缺乏随机试验。我们通过进行系统评价和荟萃分析,研究了杂交消融术在预防房颤复发方面是否比单纯的心外膜消融更有效。该评价已在PROSPERO(CRD42016043389)上进行了前瞻性注册。在MEDLINE和EMBASE中检索了关于单独的微创房颤心外膜消融和/或杂交消融的研究,共识别出41项不重叠的研究,涉及2737例患者。进行了随机效应荟萃分析、荟萃回归分析和敏感性分析。在12个月时,单纯心外膜消融和杂交消融两种方法在不使用抗心律失常药物的情况下,单次手术后无房性心律失常的生存率相似(单纯心外膜消融71.5%;[95%可信区间66.1 - 76.9],杂交消融63.2%;[95%可信区间51.5 - 75.0]),在24个月时也相似(单纯心外膜消融68.5%;[95%可信区间57.7 - 79.3],杂交消融57.0%;[95%可信区间33.6 - 80.4])。两组在使用抗心律失常药物时无房性心律失常的情况以及计划外额外导管消融的发生率也相似。杂交消融术发生主要并发症的情况更常见(单纯心外膜消融2.9%;[95%可信区间1.9 - 3.9],杂交消融7.3%;[95%可信区间4.2 - 10.5])。荟萃回归分析表明,双极射频能量和胸腔镜入路与更高的疗效相关,但在调整这些因素后,未发现单纯心外膜消融和杂交消融之间存在任何差异。杂交消融术和单纯心外膜消融术似乎是治疗房颤的同样有效的方法,尽管杂交消融术可能与更高的并发症发生率相关。这些来自观察性研究的数据应通过随机数据进行验证。