Literature DB >> 23210695

Cryoballoon versus radiofrequency for pulmonary vein re-isolation after a failed initial ablation procedure in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation.

Evgeny Pokushalov1, Alexander Romanov, Sergey Artyomenko, Vera Baranova, Denis Losik, Sevda Bairamova, Alexander Karaskov, Suneet Mittal, Jonathan S Steinberg.   

Abstract

AIM: Catheter ablation of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF) is associated with an important risk of early and late recurrence, necessitating repeat ablation procedures. The aim of this prospective randomized patient-blind study was to compare the efficacy and safety of cryoballoon (Cryo) versus radiofrequency (RF) ablation of PAF after failed initial RF ablation procedure.
METHODS: Patients with a history of symptomatic PAF after a previous failed first RF ablation procedure were eligible for this study. Patients were randomized to Cryo or RF redo ablation. The primary endpoint of the study was recurrence of atrial tachyarrhythmia, including AF and left atrial flutter/tachycardia, after a second ablation procedure at 1 year of follow-up. All patients were implanted with a cardiac monitor (Reveal XT, Medtronic) to continuously track the cardiac rhythm. Patients with an AF burden (AF%) ≤ 0.5% were considered AF-free (Responders), while those with an AF% > 0.5% were classified as patients with AF recurrences (non-Responders).
RESULTS: Eighty patients with AF recurrences after a first RF pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) were randomized to Cryo (N = 40) or to RF (N = 40). Electrical potentials were recorded in 77 mapped PVs (1.9 ± 0.8 per patient) in Cryo Group and 72 PVs (1.7 ± 0.8 per patient) in RF Group (P = 0.62), all of which were targeted. In Cryo group, 68 (88%) of the 77 PVs were re-isolated using only Cryo technique; the remaining 9 PVs were re-isolated using RF. In RF group, all 72 PVs were successfully re-isolated (P = 0.003 vs Cryo). By intention-to-treat, 23 (58%) RF patients were AF-free vs 17 (43%) Cryo patients on no antiarrhythmic drugs at 1 year (P = 0.06). Three patients had temporary phrenic nerve paralysis in the Cryo group; the RF group had no complications. Of the 29 patients who had only Cryo PVI without any RF ablation, 11 (38%) were AF-free vs 20 (59%) of the 34 patients who had RF only (P = 0.021).
CONCLUSION: When patients require a redo pulmonary vein isolation ablation procedure for recurrent PAF, RF appears to be the preferred energy source relative to Cryo.
© 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23210695     DOI: 10.1111/jce.12038

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol        ISSN: 1045-3873


  11 in total

Review 1.  Comparison of catheter ablation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation between cryoballoon and radiofrequency: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Chao-Feng Chen; Xiao-Fei Gao; Xu Duan; Bin Chen; Xiao-Hua Liu; Yi-Zhou Xu
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2017-01-07       Impact factor: 1.900

2.  Repeat procedures using the second-generation cryoballoon for recurrence of atrial fibrillation after initial ablation with conventional radiofrequency.

Authors:  Valentina De Regibus; Saverio Iacopino; Juan-Pablo Abugattas; Giacomo Mugnai; Darragh Moran; Erwin Ströker; Hugo-Enrique Coutino; Ken Takarada; Rajin Choudhury; Gaetano Paparella; Vincent Umbrain; Pedro Brugada; Carlo de Asmundis; Gian-Battista Chierchia
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2017-03-17       Impact factor: 1.900

Review 3.  Durable Pulmonary Vein Isolation: The Holy Grail of Atrial Fibrillation Ablation.

Authors:  Duy Thai Nguyen; William H Sauer
Journal:  J Atr Fibrillation       Date:  2013-10-31

4.  Paroxysmal atrial fibrillation recurrence after redo procedure-ablation modality impact.

Authors:  Ivan Zeljkovic; Sven Knecht; Florian Spies; Tobias Reichlin; Stefan Osswald; Michael Kühne; Christian Sticherling
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2020-01-07       Impact factor: 1.900

Review 5.  Recurrent Atrial Fibrillation After Catheter Ablation: Considerations For Repeat Ablation And Strategies To Optimize Success.

Authors:  Andrew E Darby
Journal:  J Atr Fibrillation       Date:  2016-06-30

Review 6.  [Practical guide for safe and efficient cryoballoon ablation for atrial fibrillation : Practical procedure, tips and tricks].

Authors:  Julian Chun; Tilman Maurer; Andreas Rillig; Stefano Bordignon; Leon Iden; Sonia Busch; Daniel Steven; Roland R Tilz; Dong-In Shin; Heidi Estner; Felix Bourier; David Duncker; Philipp Sommer; Nils-Christian Ewertsen; Henning Jansen; Victoria Johnson; Livio Bertagnolli; Till Althoff; Andreas Metzner
Journal:  Herzschrittmacherther Elektrophysiol       Date:  2021-11-04

7.  Predictors of long-term outcome in patients undergoing a first repeat ablation consisting solely of re-isolation of reconnected pulmonary veins.

Authors:  Juan-Pablo Abugattas; Bruno Schwagten; Jeroen De Cocker; Hugo-Enrique Coutiño; Francesca Salghetti; Varnavas Varnavas; Erwin Ströker; Juan Sieira; Michael Wolf; Pedro Brugada; Carlo de Asmundis; Gian-Battista Chierchia; Yves De Greef
Journal:  J Atr Fibrillation       Date:  2019-02-28

Review 8.  Radiofrequency Ablation versus Cryoablation in the Treatment of Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation: A Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Ali H Hachem; Joseph E Marine; Housam A Tahboub; Sana Kamdar; Shaffi Kanjwal; Ronak Soni; Khalil Kanjwal
Journal:  Cardiol Res Pract       Date:  2018-04-01       Impact factor: 1.866

9.  High-power short-duration versus standard-power standard-duration settings for repeat atrial fibrillation ablation.

Authors:  Joey Junarta; Sean J Dikdan; Naman Upadhyay; Sairamya Bodempudi; Michael Y Shvili; Daniel R Frisch
Journal:  Heart Vessels       Date:  2021-11-30       Impact factor: 1.814

10.  Is cryoballoon ablation preferable to radiofrequency ablation for treatment of atrial fibrillation by pulmonary vein isolation? A meta-analysis.

Authors:  Junxia Xu; Yingqun Huang; Hongbin Cai; Yue Qi; Nan Jia; Weifeng Shen; Jinxiu Lin; Feng Peng; Wenquan Niu
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-02-28       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.