YuCLiHZengZ, et al. Hybrid biatrial ablation versus catheter ablation for patients with nonparoxysmal atrial fibrillation and enlarged left atrium. Innovations2024; 19: 511–519.
2.
DeLurgioDBCrossenKJGillJ, et al. Hybrid convergent procedure for the treatment of persistent and long-standing persistent arial fibrillation: results of CONVERGE clinical trial. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol2020; 13: e009288.
3.
DunningtonGHPierceCLEisenbergS, et al. A heart-team hybrid approach for atrial fibrillation: a single-centre long-term clinical outcome cohort study. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg2021; 60: 1343–1350.
4.
HennMCLancasterTSMillerJR, et al. Late outcomes after the Cox maze IV procedure for atrial fibrillation. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg2015; 150: 1168–1176.
5.
AdN.Surgical ablation for atrial fibrillation: what should be accepted as the gold standard?Eur J Cardiothorac Surg2021; 60: 1351–1352.
6.
CalkinsHKuckKHCappatoR, et al. 2012 HRS/EHRA/ECAS expert consensus statement on catheter and surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation: recommendations for patient selection, procedural techniques, patient management and follow-up, definitions, endpoints, and research trial design. Europace2012; 14: 528–606.
7.
JeHGShumanDJAdN.A systematic review of minimally invasive surgical treatment for atrial fibrillation: a comparison of the Cox-Maze procedure, beating-heart epicardial ablation, and the hybrid procedure on safety and efficacy. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg2015; 48: 531–540.
