{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02089783281733746, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.49748743718593, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Hybrid approach to treatment of atrial fibrillation

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common sustained arrhythmia encountered in clinical practice. For years, there has been much interest and much is written with regard to the integrated or hybrid multidisciplinary approach toward cardiovascular care. The hybrid approach has been established in many centers, mostly with respect to ischemic heart disease. However, it is only a new and upcoming trend toward the use of a hybrid approach to treating cardiac arrhythmias. This hybrid approach to treating AF, while not the prevalent practice, is supported by medical literature. This review article examines the hybrid approach to treatment of AF, its benefits, disadvantages, and safety, as well as the long‐term results, based on current available literature. The hybrid approach to treatment of AF, combining surgical epicardial, and catheter endocardial ablation, showed a higher success rate compared to either technique alone. The increasing cooperation and professional intimacy between cardiologists and cardiothoracic surgeons are likely to continue and the hybrid approach, with its benefits while bearing in mind its limitations, may become the gold standard for treatment of drug‐resistant AF for the coming decade and beyond.