Arash Aryana1, Sheldon M Singh2, Giacomo Mugnai3, Carlo de Asmundis3, Marcin Kowalski4, Deep K Pujara5, Andrew I Cohen6, Steve K Singh5, Charles E Fuenzalida6, Nelson Prager6, Mark R Bowers7, Padraig Gearoid O'Neill7, Pedro Brugada3, André d'Avila8, Gian-Battista Chierchia3. 1. Department of Cardiology and Cardiovascular Surgery, Mercy General Hospital and Dignity Health Heart and Vascular Institute, 3941 J Street, Suite #350, Sacramento, CA, 95819, USA. a_aryana@outlook.com. 2. Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 3. Heart Rhythm Management Center, UZ Brussel, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium. 4. Staten Island Heart and North Shore-LIJ Health System, Staten Island, NY, USA. 5. CHI Baylor St. Luke's Medical Center, Texas Heart Institute, Houston, TX, USA. 6. Aurora Denver Cardiology Associates - Aurora, Aurora, CO, USA. 7. Department of Cardiology and Cardiovascular Surgery, Mercy General Hospital and Dignity Health Heart and Vascular Institute, 3941 J Street, Suite #350, Sacramento, CA, 95819, USA. 8. Instituto de Pesquisa em Arritmia Cardiaca, Hospital Cardiologico, Florianopolis, Santa Catarina, Brazil.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (CAAF) using the cryoballoon has emerged as an alternate strategy to point-by-point radiofrequency. However, there is little comparative data on long-term durability of pulmonary vein (PV) isolation comparing these two modalities. METHODS: In this multicenter, retrospective analysis, the incidences/patterns of late PV reconnection following an index CAAF using the second-generation cryoballoon versus open-irrigated, non-force-sensing radiofrequency were examined. RESULTS: Of the 2002 patients who underwent a first-time CAAF, 186/1126 patients (16.5 %) ablated using cryoballoon and 174/876 patients (19.9 %) with non-contact force-guided radiofrequency required a repeat procedure at 11 ± 5 months. During follow-up, the incidence of atrial flutters/tachycardias was lower (19.9 vs. 32.8 %; p = 0.005) and fewer patients exhibited PV reconnection (47.3 vs. 60.9 %; p = 0.007) with cryoballoon versus radiofrequency. Additionally, fewer PVs had reconnected with cryoballoon versus radiofrequency (18.8 vs. 34.6 %; p < 0.001). With cryoballoon, the right inferior (p < 0.001) and left common (p = 0.039) PVs were more likely to exhibit late reconnection, versus the left superior PV with radiofrequency (p = 0.012). However, when comparing the two strategies, the left common PV was more likely to exhibit reconnection with cryoballoon, whereas all other PVs with the exception of the right inferior PV demonstrated a lower reconnection rate with cryoballoon versus radiofrequency. Lastly, in a logistic regression multivariate analysis, cryoballoon ablation and PV ablation time emerged as significant predictors of durable PV isolation at repeat procedure. CONCLUSIONS: In this large multicenter, retrospective analysis, CAAF using the second-generation cryoballoon was associated with improved durability of PV isolation compared to open-irrigated, non-force-sensing radiofrequency.
PURPOSE: Catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (CAAF) using the cryoballoon has emerged as an alternate strategy to point-by-point radiofrequency. However, there is little comparative data on long-term durability of pulmonary vein (PV) isolation comparing these two modalities. METHODS: In this multicenter, retrospective analysis, the incidences/patterns of late PV reconnection following an index CAAF using the second-generation cryoballoon versus open-irrigated, non-force-sensing radiofrequency were examined. RESULTS: Of the 2002 patients who underwent a first-time CAAF, 186/1126 patients (16.5 %) ablated using cryoballoon and 174/876 patients (19.9 %) with non-contact force-guided radiofrequency required a repeat procedure at 11 ± 5 months. During follow-up, the incidence of atrial flutters/tachycardias was lower (19.9 vs. 32.8 %; p = 0.005) and fewer patients exhibited PV reconnection (47.3 vs. 60.9 %; p = 0.007) with cryoballoon versus radiofrequency. Additionally, fewer PVs had reconnected with cryoballoon versus radiofrequency (18.8 vs. 34.6 %; p < 0.001). With cryoballoon, the right inferior (p < 0.001) and left common (p = 0.039) PVs were more likely to exhibit late reconnection, versus the left superior PV with radiofrequency (p = 0.012). However, when comparing the two strategies, the left common PV was more likely to exhibit reconnection with cryoballoon, whereas all other PVs with the exception of the right inferior PV demonstrated a lower reconnection rate with cryoballoon versus radiofrequency. Lastly, in a logistic regression multivariate analysis, cryoballoon ablation and PV ablation time emerged as significant predictors of durable PV isolation at repeat procedure. CONCLUSIONS: In this large multicenter, retrospective analysis, CAAF using the second-generation cryoballoon was associated with improved durability of PV isolation compared to open-irrigated, non-force-sensing radiofrequency.
Authors: Alexander Fürnkranz; Stefano Bordignon; Daniela Dugo; Laura Perotta; Melanie Gunawardene; Britta Schulte-Hahn; Bernd Nowak; Boris Schmidt; Julian K R Chun Journal: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol Date: 2014-05-02
Authors: Jason S Chinitz; Robert A Kulina; Sandeep R Gangireddy; Marc A Miller; Jacob S Koruth; Srinivas R Dukkipati; Jonathan L Halperin; Vivek Y Reddy; Andre d'Avila Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2013-02-27 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Arash Aryana; Sheldon M Singh; Marcin Kowalski; Deep K Pujara; Andrew I Cohen; Steve K Singh; Ryan G Aleong; Rajesh S Banker; Charles E Fuenzalida; Nelson A Prager; Mark R Bowers; André D'Avila; Padraig Gearoid O'Neill Journal: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol Date: 2015-06-04
Authors: Vivek Y Reddy; Lucie Sediva; Jan Petru; Jan Skoda; Milan Chovanec; Zita Chitovova; Paola Di Stefano; Ethel Rubin; Srinivas Dukkipati; Petr Neuzil Journal: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol Date: 2015-04-15
Authors: Douglas L Packer; Robert C Kowal; Kevin R Wheelan; James M Irwin; Jean Champagne; Peter G Guerra; Marc Dubuc; Vivek Reddy; Linda Nelson; Richard G Holcomb; John W Lehmann; Jeremy N Ruskin Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2013-03-21 Impact factor: 24.094
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
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
Authors: Christiane Jungen; Fares-Alexander Alken; Christian Eickholt; Katharina Scherschel; Pawel Kuklik; Niklas Klatt; Jana Schwarzl; Julia Moser; Mario Jularic; Ruken Oezge Akbulak; Benjamin Schaeffer; Stephan Willems; Christian Meyer Journal: Arch Med Sci Date: 2019-03-25 Impact factor: 3.318
Authors: Thomas J Buist; Ahmet Adiyaman; Jaap Jan J Smit; Anand R Ramdat Misier; Arif Elvan Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2018-02-06 Impact factor: 5.460