Jalaj Garg1, Rahul Chaudhary2, Chandrasekar Palaniswamy3, Neeraj Shah1, Parasuram Krishnamoorthy4, Babak Bozorgnia1, Andrea Natale5. 1. Division of Cardiology, Lehigh Valley Health Network, Allentown, PA. 2. Department of Medicine, Sinai Hospital of Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD. 3. Helmsley Electrophysiology Center, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY. 4. Einstein Healthcare Network, Philadelphia, PA. 5. Texas Cardiac Arrhythmia Institute at St. David's Medical Center, Austin, TX.
Abstract
Introduction: We aimed to study the procedural characteristics, efficacy and safety of cryoballoon ablation (CBA) versus radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for catheter ablation of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF). Methods: A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to clinical trials comparing CBA and RFA for AF. Outcomes were evaluated for efficacy, procedure characteristics and safety. For each study, odd ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for endpoints for both approaches. Results: We analyzed a total of 9,957 participants (3,369 in the CBA and 6,588 in RFA group) enrolled in 16 clinical trials. No significant difference was observed between CBA and RFA with regards to freedom from atrial arrhythmia at 12-months, recurrent atrial arrhythmias or repeat catheter ablation. CBA group had a significantly higher transient phrenic nerve injury (OR 14.19, 95% CI: 6.92-29.10; p<0.001) and persistent phrenic nerve injury (OR 4.62, 95% CI: 1.97-10.81; p<0.001); and a significantly lower pericardial effusion/cardiac tamponade (OR 0.43, 95% CI: 0.26-0.72; p=0.001), and groin site complications (OR 0.60, 95% CI: 0.38-0.93; p=0.02). No significant difference was observed in overall complications, stroke/thromboembolic events, major bleeding, and minor bleeding. Conclusion: CBA was non-inferior to RFA for catheter ablation of paroxysmal AF. RF ablation was associated with a higher groin complications and pericardial effusion/cardiac tamponade, whereas CBA was associated with higher rates of transient and persistent phrenic nerve injury.
Introduction: We aimed to study the procedural characteristics, efficacy and safety of cryoballoon ablation (CBA) versus radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for catheter ablation of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF). Methods: A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to clinical trials comparing CBA and RFA for AF. Outcomes were evaluated for efficacy, procedure characteristics and safety. For each study, odd ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for endpoints for both approaches. Results: We analyzed a total of 9,957 participants (3,369 in the CBA and 6,588 in RFA group) enrolled in 16 clinical trials. No significant difference was observed between CBA and RFA with regards to freedom from atrial arrhythmia at 12-months, recurrent atrial arrhythmias or repeat catheter ablation. CBA group had a significantly higher transient phrenic nerve injury (OR 14.19, 95% CI: 6.92-29.10; p<0.001) and persistent phrenic nerve injury (OR 4.62, 95% CI: 1.97-10.81; p<0.001); and a significantly lower pericardial effusion/cardiac tamponade (OR 0.43, 95% CI: 0.26-0.72; p=0.001), and groin site complications (OR 0.60, 95% CI: 0.38-0.93; p=0.02). No significant difference was observed in overall complications, stroke/thromboembolic events, major bleeding, and minor bleeding. Conclusion:CBA was non-inferior to RFA for catheter ablation of paroxysmal AF. RF ablation was associated with a higher groin complications and pericardial effusion/cardiac tamponade, whereas CBA was associated with higher rates of transient and persistent phrenic nerve injury.
Authors: Craig T January; L Samuel Wann; Joseph S Alpert; Hugh Calkins; Joaquin E Cigarroa; Joseph C Cleveland; Jamie B Conti; Patrick T Ellinor; Michael D Ezekowitz; Michael E Field; Katherine T Murray; Ralph L Sacco; William G Stevenson; Patrick J Tchou; Cynthia M Tracy; Clyde W Yancy Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2014-03-28 Impact factor: 24.094
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: Susan Colilla; Ann Crow; William Petkun; Daniel E Singer; Teresa Simon; Xianchen Liu Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2013-07-04 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Boris Schmidt; Melanie Gunawardene; Detlef Krieg; Stefano Bordignon; Alexander Fürnkranz; Mehmet Kulikoglu; Wilfried Herrmann; K R Julian Chun Journal: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol Date: 2013-04-18
Authors: Sanders Chae; Hakan Oral; Eric Good; Sujoya Dey; Alan Wimmer; Thomas Crawford; Darryl Wells; Jean-Francois Sarrazin; Nagib Chalfoun; Michael Kuhne; Jackie Fortino; Elizabeth Huether; Tammy Lemerand; Frank Pelosi; Frank Bogun; Fred Morady; Aman Chugh Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2007-10-15 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Roberto De Ponti; Riccardo Cappato; Antonio Curnis; Paolo Della Bella; Luigi Padeletti; Antonio Raviele; Massimo Santini; Jorge A Salerno-Uriarte Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2006-02-09 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: David J Wilber; Carlo Pappone; Petr Neuzil; Angelo De Paola; Frank Marchlinski; Andrea Natale; Laurent Macle; Emile G Daoud; Hugh Calkins; Burr Hall; Vivek Reddy; Giuseppe Augello; Matthew R Reynolds; Chandan Vinekar; Christine Y Liu; Scott M Berry; Donald A Berry Journal: JAMA Date: 2010-01-27 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Giacomo Mugnai; Carlo de Asmundis; Saverio Iacopino; Erwin Ströker; Massimo Longobardi; Maria Claudia Negro; Valentina De Regibus; Hugo Enrique Coutino-Moreno; Ken Takarada; Rajin Choudhury; Juan Pablo Abugattas de Torres; Cesare Storti; Pedro Brugada; Gian-Battista Chierchia Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2018-02-14 Impact factor: 1.900