Akshit Sharma1, Jashdeep Dhoot1, Jingyan Wang1,2, Philip Jones1,2, Sanjaya Gupta1,2, Alan P Wimmer3,4. 1. Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Missouri-Kansas City, 4330 Wornall Road, Suite 2000, Kansas City, MO, 64111, USA. 2. Saint Luke's Mid America Heart Institute, University of Missouri-Kansas City, 4330 Wornall Road, Suite 2000, Kansas City, MO, 64111, USA. 3. Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Missouri-Kansas City, 4330 Wornall Road, Suite 2000, Kansas City, MO, 64111, USA. awimmer@saint-lukes.org. 4. Saint Luke's Mid America Heart Institute, University of Missouri-Kansas City, 4330 Wornall Road, Suite 2000, Kansas City, MO, 64111, USA. awimmer@saint-lukes.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Pressure waveform analysis has the potential for facilitated assessment of pulmonary vein occlusion during cryoballoon ablation for atrial fibrillation. Data on clinical outcomes using this method are lacking. We sought to validate through clinical outcomes the use of pressure waveform analysis as the primary method of determining pulmonary vein occlusion during cryoballoon ablation. METHODS: A study was performed of 122 consecutive patients with atrial fibrillation (85% paroxysmal) undergoing cryoballoon ablation from May 2014 through July 2015 at a single institution using pressure waveform analysis as the primary method of assessing pulmonary vein occlusion. RESULTS: Cryoballoon ablation, with additional segmental radiofrequency ablation in 13.7%, resulted in complete pulmonary vein isolation in 100% of patients. The single procedure freedom from recurrence of atrial arrhythmia beyond the initial 3-month post-ablation was 81.2% at a mean follow-up of 237 days. Recurrence of atrial arrhythmia within 3-month post-ablation was 11.1%, and predicted recurrence beyond 3 months. Repeat ablation was performed in 12.0% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: In the largest study to date on this topic and the only study to focus on clinical outcomes, pressure waveform analysis as the primary method of determining pulmonary vein occlusion in cryoballoon ablation of atrial fibrillation resulted in acute and long-term procedural success rates comparable to those reported with use of routine pulmonary venography. Controlled study is needed to confirm these findings and to determine if this technique affects variables such as procedure duration and radiation exposure.
PURPOSE: Pressure waveform analysis has the potential for facilitated assessment of pulmonary vein occlusion during cryoballoon ablation for atrial fibrillation. Data on clinical outcomes using this method are lacking. We sought to validate through clinical outcomes the use of pressure waveform analysis as the primary method of determining pulmonary vein occlusion during cryoballoon ablation. METHODS: A study was performed of 122 consecutive patients with atrial fibrillation (85% paroxysmal) undergoing cryoballoon ablation from May 2014 through July 2015 at a single institution using pressure waveform analysis as the primary method of assessing pulmonary vein occlusion. RESULTS: Cryoballoon ablation, with additional segmental radiofrequency ablation in 13.7%, resulted in complete pulmonary vein isolation in 100% of patients. The single procedure freedom from recurrence of atrial arrhythmia beyond the initial 3-month post-ablation was 81.2% at a mean follow-up of 237 days. Recurrence of atrial arrhythmia within 3-month post-ablation was 11.1%, and predicted recurrence beyond 3 months. Repeat ablation was performed in 12.0% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: In the largest study to date on this topic and the only study to focus on clinical outcomes, pressure waveform analysis as the primary method of determining pulmonary vein occlusion in cryoballoon ablation of atrial fibrillation resulted in acute and long-term procedural success rates comparable to those reported with use of routine pulmonary venography. Controlled study is needed to confirm these findings and to determine if this technique affects variables such as procedure duration and radiation exposure.
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: 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: 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: Ioanna Kosmidou; Shannnon Wooden; Brian Jones; Thomas Deering; Andrew Wickliffe; Dan Dan Journal: J Vis Exp Date: 2013-02-26 Impact factor: 1.355
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: Claudia Herrera Siklódy; Jan Minners; Martin Allgeier; Hans-Jürgen Allgeier; Nikolaus Jander; Cornelius Keyl; Reinhold Weber; Jochen Schiebeling-Römer; Dietrich Kalusche; Thomas Arentz Journal: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol Date: 2009-09-28