Jingbo Jiang1, Jinyi Li1, Guoqiang Zhong2, Junjun Jiang3. 1. Department of Cardiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, 22 Shuangyong Road, Nanning, 530021, Guangxi Autonomous Region, People's Republic of China. 2. Department of Cardiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, 22 Shuangyong Road, Nanning, 530021, Guangxi Autonomous Region, People's Republic of China. zhonggqgxmu@163.com. 3. Guangxi Key Laboratory of AIDS Prevention and Treatment, School of Public Health, Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, People's Republic of China.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Currently, radiofrequency (RF) and cryoballoon are the most commonly used ablation technologies for atrial fibrillation (AF). We performed a meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of the second-generation cryoballoons (CB-2) compared with RF for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF) ablation. METHODS: The PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases were searched and qualified studies were identified. The primary clinical outcome was the recurrence rate of atrial tachyarrhythmia (AT), and the secondary clinical outcomes were procedure time, fluoroscopy time, and the complications that followed. RESULTS: Nine observational studies (2336 patients) with a mean follow-up period ranging from 8.8 to 16.8 months were included. The CB-2 group was associated with a significantly lower recurrence rate of ATs (20.8 versus 29.8 %, p = 0.01). In subgroup analysis, compared with non-contact force sensing (NCF) catheter, using CB-2 showed significantly reduced incidence of ATs (22.0 versus 38.5 %, p < 0.00001). However, the difference became negligible in contrast with contact force sensing (CF) catheter. Moreover, the CB-2 group had a tendency to decrease procedure time (weighted mean difference -39.72 min, p = 0.0003), whereas fluoroscopy time was similar between the two groups. The total complication rate showed no statistical difference (8.8 versus 4.4 %, p = 0.08). Almost all the cases of phrenic nerve palsy occurred in the CB-2 group, whereas pericardial tamponade was seldom manifested in the CB-2 group. CONCLUSIONS: CB-2 tended to be more effective in comparison to NCF catheter and at least non-inferior to CF catheter, with shorter procedure time and similar safety endpoint.
PURPOSE: Currently, radiofrequency (RF) and cryoballoon are the most commonly used ablation technologies for atrial fibrillation (AF). We performed a meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of the second-generation cryoballoons (CB-2) compared with RF for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF) ablation. METHODS: The PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases were searched and qualified studies were identified. The primary clinical outcome was the recurrence rate of atrial tachyarrhythmia (AT), and the secondary clinical outcomes were procedure time, fluoroscopy time, and the complications that followed. RESULTS: Nine observational studies (2336 patients) with a mean follow-up period ranging from 8.8 to 16.8 months were included. The CB-2 group was associated with a significantly lower recurrence rate of ATs (20.8 versus 29.8 %, p = 0.01). In subgroup analysis, compared with non-contact force sensing (NCF) catheter, using CB-2 showed significantly reduced incidence of ATs (22.0 versus 38.5 %, p < 0.00001). However, the difference became negligible in contrast with contact force sensing (CF) catheter. Moreover, the CB-2 group had a tendency to decrease procedure time (weighted mean difference -39.72 min, p = 0.0003), whereas fluoroscopy time was similar between the two groups. The total complication rate showed no statistical difference (8.8 versus 4.4 %, p = 0.08). Almost all the cases of phrenic nerve palsy occurred in the CB-2 group, whereas pericardial tamponade was seldom manifested in the CB-2 group. CONCLUSIONS:CB-2 tended to be more effective in comparison to NCF catheter and at least non-inferior to CF catheter, with shorter procedure time and similar safety endpoint.
Authors: Jeremiah Wasserlauf; Daniel J Pelchovitz; John Rhyner; Nishant Verma; Martha Bohn; Zhi Li; Rishi Arora; Alexandru B Chicos; Jeffrey J Goldberger; Susan S Kim; Albert C Lin; Bradley P Knight; Rod S Passman Journal: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol Date: 2015-01-28 Impact factor: 1.976
Authors: Jason G Andrade; Marc Dubuc; Jose Ferreira; Peter G Guerra; Evelyn Landry; Nicolas Coulombe; Lena Rivard; Laurent Macle; Bernard Thibault; Mario Talajic; Denis Roy; Paul Khairy Journal: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol Date: 2013-10-11
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: Mohammed Shurrab; Luigi Di Biase; David F Briceno; Anna Kaoutskaia; Saleem Haj-Yahia; David Newman; Ilan Lashevsky; Hiroshi Nakagawa; Eugene Crystal Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2015-09-21 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Philipp Seidl; Frank Steinborn; Lisa Costello-Boerrigter; Ralf Surber; Paul C Schulze; Christine Böttcher; Andreas Sommermeier; Violeta Mattea; Roland Simeoni; Frank Michael Malur; Harald Lapp; Anja Schade Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2020-05-15 Impact factor: 1.900
Authors: Wilber Su; G Joseph Orme; Robert Hoyt; James Baker; Steven Compton; Christopher Fellows; John Harding; J Thomas Svinarich; Marcin Kowalski; Bryan Piedad; David Kenigsberg; John Seger; Zeshan K Ahmad; Paul Wang Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2018-02-24 Impact factor: 1.900