Thomas J Buist1, Ahmet Adiyaman1, Jaap Jan J Smit1, Anand R Ramdat Misier1, Arif Elvan2. 1. Department of cardiology, Isala Heart Centre, Dr. Van Heesweg 2, 8025 AB, Zwolle, The Netherlands. 2. Department of cardiology, Isala Heart Centre, Dr. Van Heesweg 2, 8025 AB, Zwolle, The Netherlands. v.r.c.derks@isala.nl.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to compare second-generation cryoballoon and contact-force radiofrequency point-by-point pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with regard to pulmonary vein reconnection and arrhythmia-free survival. METHODS AND RESULTS: Altogether, 269 consecutive patients with drug-refractory AF undergoing PVI were included and randomly allocated to second-generation cryoballoon or contact-force point-by-point radiofrequency ablation. Median follow-up duration was 389 days (interquartile range 219-599). Mean age was 59 years (71% male); 136 patients underwent cryoballoon and 133 patients underwent radiofrequency ablation. Acute electrical PVI was 100% for both techniques. Procedure duration was significantly shorter in cryoballoon vs radiofrequency (166.5 vs 184.13 min P = 0.016). Complication rates were similar (6.0 vs 6.7%, P = 1.00). Single procedure freedom of atrial arrhythmias was significantly higher in cryoballoon as compared to radiofrequency (75.2 vs 57.4%, P = 0.013). In multivariate analysis, persistent AF, AF duration, and cryoballoon ablation were associated with freedom of atrial tachyarrhythmias. The number of repeat ablation procedures was significantly lower in the cryoballoon compared to radiofrequency (15.0 vs 24.3%, P = 0.045). At repeat ablation, pulmonary vein reconnection rate was significantly lower after cryoballoon as compared to radiofrequency ablation (36.8 vs 58.1%, P = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS:Improved arrhythmia-free survival and more durable pulmonary vein isolation is seen after PVI using second-generation cryoballoon as compared to contact-force radiofrequency, in patients with drug-refractory paroxysmal AF. Complication rates for both ablation techniques are low.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to compare second-generation cryoballoon and contact-force radiofrequency point-by-point pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with regard to pulmonary vein reconnection and arrhythmia-free survival. METHODS AND RESULTS: Altogether, 269 consecutive patients with drug-refractory AF undergoing PVI were included and randomly allocated to second-generation cryoballoon or contact-force point-by-point radiofrequency ablation. Median follow-up duration was 389 days (interquartile range 219-599). Mean age was 59 years (71% male); 136 patients underwent cryoballoon and 133 patients underwent radiofrequency ablation. Acute electrical PVI was 100% for both techniques. Procedure duration was significantly shorter in cryoballoon vs radiofrequency (166.5 vs 184.13 min P = 0.016). Complication rates were similar (6.0 vs 6.7%, P = 1.00). Single procedure freedom of atrial arrhythmias was significantly higher in cryoballoon as compared to radiofrequency (75.2 vs 57.4%, P = 0.013). In multivariate analysis, persistent AF, AF duration, and cryoballoon ablation were associated with freedom of atrial tachyarrhythmias. The number of repeat ablation procedures was significantly lower in the cryoballoon compared to radiofrequency (15.0 vs 24.3%, P = 0.045). At repeat ablation, pulmonary vein reconnection rate was significantly lower after cryoballoon as compared to radiofrequency ablation (36.8 vs 58.1%, P = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Improved arrhythmia-free survival and more durable pulmonary vein isolation is seen after PVI using second-generation cryoballoon as compared to contact-force radiofrequency, in patients with drug-refractory paroxysmal AF. Complication rates for both ablation techniques are low.
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: Anthony G Brooks; Martin K Stiles; Julien Laborderie; Dennis H Lau; Pawel Kuklik; Nicholas J Shipp; Li-Fern Hsu; Prashanthan Sanders Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2010-01-22 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: M Haïssaguerre; P Jaïs; D C Shah; A Takahashi; M Hocini; G Quiniou; S Garrigue; A Le Mouroux; P Le Métayer; J Clémenty Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1998-09-03 Impact factor: 91.245
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: Karl-Heinz Kuck; Josep Brugada; Alexander Fürnkranz; Andreas Metzner; Feifan Ouyang; K R Julian Chun; Arif Elvan; Thomas Arentz; Kurt Bestehorn; Stuart J Pocock; Jean-Paul Albenque; Claudio Tondo Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2016-04-04 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Tilman Maurer; Laura Rottner; Hisaki Makimoto; Bruno Reissmann; Christian-H Heeger; Christine Lemes; Thomas Fink; Johannes Riedl; Francesco Santoro; Peter Wohlmuth; Marius Volkmer; Shibu Mathew; Andreas Metzner; Feifan Ouyang; Karl-Heinz Kuck; Christian Sohns Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2018-05-08 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Makoto Sano; Christian-Hendrik Heeger; Vanessa Sciacca; Niels Große; Ahmad Keelani; Behzad Hassan Hosseiny Fahimi; Huong Lan Phan; Samuel Reincke; Ben Brüggemann; Thomas Fink; Spyridon Liosis; Julia Vogler; Charlotte Eitel; Roland Richard Tilz Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2020-07-07 Impact factor: 1.900
Authors: Ruben Schleberger; Andreas Metzner; Karl-Heinz Kuck; Dietrich Andresen; Stephan Willems; Ellen Hoffmann; Thomas Deneke; Lars Eckardt; Johannes Brachmann; Matthias Hochadel; Jochen Senges; Andreas Rillig Journal: Pharmacol Res Perspect Date: 2021-12