BACKGROUND: Pulmonary vein isolation by cryoballoon ablation is an accepted method of treating atrial fibrillation. Little data exist regarding factors affecting late electrical reconnection of pulmonary veins following cryoballoon ablation. OBJECTIVE: To investigate factors determining pulmonary vein reconnection in patients undergoing repeat catheter ablation for recurrent atrial fibrillation following cryoballoon ablation. METHODS: Fifty-one consecutive patients undergoing repeat catheter ablation for recurrent atrial fibrillation following initial cryoballoon ablation underwent retrospective assessment of initial cryoablation characteristics, including balloon and vein sizes, venogram occlusion score, balloon freezing time from 0 to -30 °C, nadir temperature, and balloon warming time from -30 to +15 °C, recorded during the initial cryoballoon procedure. RESULTS: Of 199 veins assessed, 91 had reconnected (1.8 per patient). Balloon warming time (odds ratio [OR] 3.21; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.00-5.13; P < .0001), nadir temperature (OR 1.94; 95% CI 1.42-2.66; P < .0001), vein occlusion score (OR 1.74; 95% CI 1.29-2.34; P = .0003), and balloon freezing time (OR 1.58; 95% CI 1.03-2.42; P = .037) predicted pulmonary vein reconnection. On multivariate analysis, balloon warming time (OR 3.71; 95% CI 2.2-6.24; P ≤ .0001), pulmonary vein size (OR 1.63; 95% CI 1.08-2.43; P = .020), and vein occlusion score (OR 1.48; 95% CI 1.06-2.08; P = .021) remained statistically significant independent predictors of pulmonary vein reconnection. The receiver operating characteristic for the multivariate model yielded an area under the curve of 0.82. CONCLUSIONS: Balloon warming time, vein occlusion score, and pulmonary vein size predict pulmonary vein reconnection. Balloon warming time was the most important predictive factor, and the manipulation of balloon warming may be a novel therapeutic strategy for improving outcomes of cryoballoon ablation for atrial fibrillation.
BACKGROUND: Pulmonary vein isolation by cryoballoon ablation is an accepted method of treating atrial fibrillation. Little data exist regarding factors affecting late electrical reconnection of pulmonary veins following cryoballoon ablation. OBJECTIVE: To investigate factors determining pulmonary vein reconnection in patients undergoing repeat catheter ablation for recurrent atrial fibrillation following cryoballoon ablation. METHODS: Fifty-one consecutive patients undergoing repeat catheter ablation for recurrent atrial fibrillation following initial cryoballoon ablation underwent retrospective assessment of initial cryoablation characteristics, including balloon and vein sizes, venogram occlusion score, balloon freezing time from 0 to -30 °C, nadir temperature, and balloon warming time from -30 to +15 °C, recorded during the initial cryoballoon procedure. RESULTS: Of 199 veins assessed, 91 had reconnected (1.8 per patient). Balloon warming time (odds ratio [OR] 3.21; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.00-5.13; P < .0001), nadir temperature (OR 1.94; 95% CI 1.42-2.66; P < .0001), vein occlusion score (OR 1.74; 95% CI 1.29-2.34; P = .0003), and balloon freezing time (OR 1.58; 95% CI 1.03-2.42; P = .037) predicted pulmonary vein reconnection. On multivariate analysis, balloon warming time (OR 3.71; 95% CI 2.2-6.24; P ≤ .0001), pulmonary vein size (OR 1.63; 95% CI 1.08-2.43; P = .020), and vein occlusion score (OR 1.48; 95% CI 1.06-2.08; P = .021) remained statistically significant independent predictors of pulmonary vein reconnection. The receiver operating characteristic for the multivariate model yielded an area under the curve of 0.82. CONCLUSIONS: Balloon warming time, vein occlusion score, and pulmonary vein size predict pulmonary vein reconnection. Balloon warming time was the most important predictive factor, and the manipulation of balloon warming may be a novel therapeutic strategy for improving outcomes of cryoballoon ablation for atrial fibrillation.
Authors: Gaetano Paparella; Saverio Iacopino; Thiago Guimarães Osório; Juan Pablo Abugattas de Torres; Erwin Ströker; Juan Sieira; Hannes Vanacker; Bernard De Ruyter; Serge Boveda; Riccardo Maj; Gianluca Borio; Alessandro Rizzo; Alessio Galli; Pedro Brugada; Carlo de Asmundis; Gian-Battista Chierchia Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2020-05-31 Impact factor: 1.900
Authors: Valter Giaretto; Andrea Ballatore; Claudio Passerone; Paolo Desalvo; Mario Matta; Andrea Saglietto; Mario De Salve; Fiorenzo Gaita; Bruno Panella; Matteo Anselmino Journal: J R Soc Interface Date: 2019-09-18 Impact factor: 4.118
Authors: Eugene G Kholmovski; Nicolas Coulombe; Joshua Silvernagel; Nathan Angel; Dennis Parker; Rob Macleod; Nassir Marrouche; Ravi Ranjan Journal: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol Date: 2016-03-21