Abstract:Introduction A hybrid convergent approach (endocardial and epicardial ablation) demonstrated superior effectiveness in a recent randomized study for long‐standing persistent atrial fibrillation (LSPAF). Yet, there is a lack of real‐world, long‐term evidence as to which patients are best candidates for a hybrid convergent approach compared to standard endocardial cryoballoon pulmonary vein isolation (CB PVI). Methods and Results This single‐center, retrospective analysis spanning from 2010 to 2015 compared two distinctly different atrial fibrillation (AF) cohorts; one treated with stand‐alone cryoablation and one treated with a hybrid convergent approach. Baseline characteristics described candidates for each approach. The following criteria were utilized to determine CB PVI candidacy: (1) paroxysmal AF (PAF) (stage 3A) with failed class I/III antiarrhythmic drug (AAD) or (2) persistent/LSPAF (stage 3B/3C/3D) with failed class I/III AAD unwilling to undergo hybrid procedure. Selection criteria for the hybrid procedure included: (1) PAF refractory to both class I/III AAD and prior CB PVI (stage 3D) or (2) persistent/LSPAF (stage 3B/3C/3D) with failed class I/III AAD agreeable to hybrid procedure. Prior sternotomy was excluded. Serial electrocardiograms and continuous monitoring evaluated primary efficacy outcome of time‐to‐first recurrence of atrial arrhythmia after a 90‐day blanking period. Secondary outcomes were procedure‐related complications and AAD use (at discharge, 12, and 36 months). Kaplan‐Meier methods evaluated arrhythmia recurrence. Of 276 patients, 197 (64.2 ± 10.6 years old; 66.5% male; 74.1% 3A‐PAF; 18.3% 3B/3D‐persistent AF; 1.0% 3C‐LSPAF; 6.6% undetermined) underwent CB PVI and 79 (61.4 ± 8.1 years old; 83.5% male; 41.8% 3D‐PAF; 45.5% 3B/3D‐persistent AF; 12.7% 3C/3D‐LSPAF) underwent hybrid procedure. Arrhythmia freedom through 36 months was 55.2% for CB PVI and 50.4% for hybrid (p = .32). Class I AAD utilization at discharge occurred in 38 (19.3%) patients in the CB PVI group and 5 (6.3%) patients in the hybrid group (p = .01). CB PVI class I AAD utilization at 12 months occurred in 14 (9.0) patients versus 0 patients for hybrid convergent (p = .004). Patients with one or more adverse event were as follows: two (1.0%) in the CB PVI group (both transient phrenic nerve palsy) and three (3.7%) in the hybrid group (two with significant bleeding and one with wound infection) (p = .14). Conclusion This study demonstrated that patients with more complex forms of AF (3D‐PAF or 3B/3C/3D‐persistent/LSPAF) could be well managed with a convergent approach. In a real‐world evaluation, outcomes match safety and efficacy thresholds achieved for patients with earlier, less complex AF etiologies treated by CB PVI alone.

Concurrent Vs Staged Hybrid Ablation for Long-Standing Persistent Atrial Fibrillation

Potential Maintenance Mechanism in Atrial Fibrillation Patients Subject to Different Treatment Procedures: A Preliminary Study Based on a Human Atrial Model

Catheter ablation for persistent atrial fibrillation with left ventricular systolic dysfunction: Who is the best candidate?

Prospective Randomized Comparison Between Upgraded?2c3l? Vs. PVI Approach for Catheter Ablation of Persistent Atrial Fibrillation: PROMPT-AF Trial Design

Outcomes of hybrid surgical ablation and concomitant left atrial appendage exclusion in long‐standing persistent atrial fibrillation

Circumferential Pulmonary Vein Isolation Plus Low-Voltage Area Modification in Persistent Atrial Fibrillation

Hybrid Biatrial Ablation Versus Catheter Ablation for Patients With Nonparoxysmal Atrial Fibrillation and Enlarged Left Atrium

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

The safety and efficacy of hybrid ablation for the treatment of atrial fibrillation: A meta-analysis

Hybrid-Convergent Procedure or Pulsed Field Ablation in Long-Standing Persistent Atrial Fibrillation

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

Real‐world evidence demonstrates an appropriate atrial fibrillation population for hybrid convergent approach versus stand‐alone cryoballoon ablation: A long‐term safety and efficacy study

Hybrid strategies for stand-alone surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation

Catheter ablation vs. thoracoscopic surgical ablation in long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation: CASA-AF randomized controlled trial

Three-year follow-up of hybrid ablation for atrial fibrillation

Convergent approach to persistent atrial fibrillation ablation: long-term single-centre safety and efficacy

Prospective randomized comparison between upgraded ‘2C3L’ vs. PVI approach for catheter ablation of persistent atrial fibrillation: PROMPT-AF trial design

Combining catheter ablation and left atrial appendage occlusion in high-risk patients with atrial fibrillation: a propensity score-matched analysis

Thoracoscopic Surgical Biatrial Ablation vs. Catheter Ablation in Patients with Persistent Atrial Fibrillation

Insufficient Ablation is Associated with Atrial Fibrillation Recurrence after Combining Ablation and Left Atrial Appendage Closure

Atrial fibrillation symptom reduction and improved quality of life following the hybrid convergent procedure: a CONVERGE trial subanalysis