PURPOSE: Although radiofrequency (RF) energy is routinely used for tricuspid isthmus (TI) ablation, it is often associated with discomfort. The paucity of studies comparing the feasibility and efficacy of cryo- versus RF energy for TI-ablation urged us to conduct a prospective, randomised trial. METHODS:Forty patients with atrial flutter (AFl) were randomised to RF- or cryoenergy for TI-ablation. Perceived pain was scored from 1 to 10 on a Visual Analogue Scale. RESULTS: Significantly lower pain scores were recorded for cryoablation versus RF ablation (0.96 +/- 0.73 versus 4.2 +/- 2.4, p = 0.00004). Cryoablation was associated with significantly longer procedure duration and ablation time (137 +/- 35 versus 111 +/- 29 min, p = 0.016 and 81 +/- 40 versus 48 +/- 30 min, p = 0.007) and lower acute success rate (56% versus 100%, p = 0.001) than RF ablation. The recurrence of AFl was 20% (cryo) versus 15% (RF; p = 0.45) after a mean of 15.1 months follow-up. CONCLUSION: Cryoablation results in significantly less pain and discomfort compared to RF ablation of AFl, which is offset by the significantly lower acute success rate.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: Although radiofrequency (RF) energy is routinely used for tricuspid isthmus (TI) ablation, it is often associated with discomfort. The paucity of studies comparing the feasibility and efficacy of cryo- versus RF energy for TI-ablation urged us to conduct a prospective, randomised trial. METHODS: Forty patients with atrial flutter (AFl) were randomised to RF- or cryoenergy for TI-ablation. Perceived pain was scored from 1 to 10 on a Visual Analogue Scale. RESULTS: Significantly lower pain scores were recorded for cryoablation versus RF ablation (0.96 +/- 0.73 versus 4.2 +/- 2.4, p = 0.00004). Cryoablation was associated with significantly longer procedure duration and ablation time (137 +/- 35 versus 111 +/- 29 min, p = 0.016 and 81 +/- 40 versus 48 +/- 30 min, p = 0.007) and lower acute success rate (56% versus 100%, p = 0.001) than RF ablation. The recurrence of AFl was 20% (cryo) versus 15% (RF; p = 0.45) after a mean of 15.1 months follow-up. CONCLUSION: Cryoablation results in significantly less pain and discomfort compared to RF ablation of AFl, which is offset by the significantly lower acute success rate.
Authors: Hugh Calkins; Robert Canby; Raul Weiss; Gregg Taylor; Peter Wells; Larry Chinitz; Simon Milstein; Steven Compton; Kimberly Oleson; Lou Sherfesee; John Onufer Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2004-08-15 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: David M Gilligan; John S Zakaib; Ithiel Fuller; Richard K Shepard; Dan Dan; Mark A Wood; Henry F Clemo; Bruce S Stambler; Kenneth A Ellenbogen Journal: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 1.976
Authors: Nicholas John Collins; Malcolm Barlow; Paul Varghese; James Leitch Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2006-10-06 Impact factor: 1.900
Authors: Annibale S Montenero; Nicola Bruno; Andrea Antonelli; Daniele Mangiameli; Luca Barbieri; Peter Andrew; Olive Murphy; Stephen O'Connor; Francesco Zumbo Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2005-02-15 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Malte Kuniss; Klaus Kurzidim; Harald Greiss; Alexander Berkowitsch; Johannes Sperzel; Christian Hamm; Heinz Friedrich Pitschner Journal: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 1.976
Authors: Randy Manusama; Carl Timmermans; Froylan Limon; Suzanne Philippens; Harry J G M Crijns; Luz-Maria Rodriguez Journal: Circulation Date: 2004-03-15 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Mehrdad Golian; F Daniel Ramirez; Wael Alqarawi; Simon P Hansom; Pablo B Nery; Calum J Redpath; Girish M Nair; George C Shaw; Darryl R Davis; David H Birnie; Mouhannad M Sadek Journal: Heart Rhythm O2 Date: 2020-10-03