Marie-Isabel Murray1,2, Ahran Arnold3,4, Murad Younis3, Swaroop Varghese3, Andreas Michael Zeiher5. 1. Department of Cardiology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt-am Main, Germany. marieisabel.murray@gmail.com. 2. Department of Health Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK. marieisabel.murray@gmail.com. 3. Department of Health Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK. 4. International Centre for Circulatory Health, Hammersmith Hospital, Imperial College London, London, UK. 5. Department of Cardiology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt-am Main, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety outcomes of the treatment with cryoballoon (CB) compared to the treatment with traditional irrigated radiofrequency ablation (RF) for pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (pAF) and refractory to antiarrhythmic drug therapy (AAD). DESIGN: We conducted a systemic review to find and include more than two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with at least 20 patients in each of the CB and RF groups. Thereafter, we performed a meta-analysis to compare the treatment with CB and RF in primary outcomes including 1 year free from AF, complications and re-ablation procedures. Additionally, we evaluated procedure time and fluoroscopy duration in both groups. Risk of bias in the individual studies and across studies was assessed using Cochrane methods. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers extracted study data and assessed risk of bias. Primary outcome data were extracted from the time point 1 year after the procedure. The random-effects model was used to calculate the odds ratio with 95% confidence interval. DATA SOURCES: Data sources utilized were PubMed and CENTRAL databases up to 16 June 2016. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Included studies were RCTs in adults with pAF and refractory to AAD in which CB therapy, including 1st and 2nd generation CB, was compared to the traditional irrigated RF therapy. Clinical outcomes assessed in each RCT were 1 year AF-free survival, complication rates, re-ablations, fluoroscopy time and procedure time. RESULTS: The systematic review identified four randomized controlled trials that reported on comparative clinical outcomes involving 1284 patients. Our meta-analysis demonstrated that CB ablation had a non-significant higher success rate than RF therapy (OR 1.13; 95% CI 0.72-1.77). However, our study showed a relatively higher rate of complications in the CB group (OR 1.20; 95% CI 0.58-2.52). Furthermore, CB treatment was associated with a non-significant, shorter procedure time and marginally prolonged fluoroscopy time in comparison to RF treatment. CONCLUSION: Our systemic review and meta-analysis revealed further evidence that cryoballoon ablation is an equally effective alternative procedure to the standard radiofrequency treatment with a slightly, non-significant higher freedom from AF 1 year after the ablation and a shorter procedure time.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety outcomes of the treatment with cryoballoon (CB) compared to the treatment with traditional irrigated radiofrequency ablation (RF) for pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (pAF) and refractory to antiarrhythmic drug therapy (AAD). DESIGN: We conducted a systemic review to find and include more than two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with at least 20 patients in each of the CB and RF groups. Thereafter, we performed a meta-analysis to compare the treatment with CB and RF in primary outcomes including 1 year free from AF, complications and re-ablation procedures. Additionally, we evaluated procedure time and fluoroscopy duration in both groups. Risk of bias in the individual studies and across studies was assessed using Cochrane methods. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers extracted study data and assessed risk of bias. Primary outcome data were extracted from the time point 1 year after the procedure. The random-effects model was used to calculate the odds ratio with 95% confidence interval. DATA SOURCES: Data sources utilized were PubMed and CENTRAL databases up to 16 June 2016. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Included studies were RCTs in adults with pAF and refractory to AAD in which CB therapy, including 1st and 2nd generation CB, was compared to the traditional irrigated RF therapy. Clinical outcomes assessed in each RCT were 1 year AF-free survival, complication rates, re-ablations, fluoroscopy time and procedure time. RESULTS: The systematic review identified four randomized controlled trials that reported on comparative clinical outcomes involving 1284 patients. Our meta-analysis demonstrated that CB ablation had a non-significant higher success rate than RF therapy (OR 1.13; 95% CI 0.72-1.77). However, our study showed a relatively higher rate of complications in the CB group (OR 1.20; 95% CI 0.58-2.52). Furthermore, CB treatment was associated with a non-significant, shorter procedure time and marginally prolonged fluoroscopy time in comparison to RF treatment. CONCLUSION: Our systemic review and meta-analysis revealed further evidence that cryoballoon ablation is an equally effective alternative procedure to the standard radiofrequency treatment with a slightly, non-significant higher freedom from AF 1 year after the ablation and a shorter procedure time.
Entities:
Keywords:
Comparison cryoballoon and radiofrequency; Meta-analysis including RCTs; Pulmonary vein isolation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation
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: Ross J Hunter; Victoria Baker; Malcolm C Finlay; Edward R Duncan; Matthew J Lovell; Muzahir H Tayebjee; Waqas Ullah; M Shoaib Siddiqui; Ailsa McLEAN; Laura Richmond; Claire Kirkby; Matthew R Ginks; Mehul Dhinoja; Simon Sporton; Mark J Earley; Richard J Schilling Journal: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol Date: 2015-11-25
Authors: Kyoung Ryul Julian Chun; Alexander Fürnkranz; Ilka Köster; Andreas Metzner; Tobias Tönnis; Peter Wohlmuth; Erik Wissner; Boris Schmidt; Feifan Ouyang; Karl Heinz Kuck Journal: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol Date: 2012-04-04
Authors: David G Sherman; Soo G Kim; Bradley S Boop; Scott D Corley; John P Dimarco; Robert G Hart; L Julian Haywood; Keith Hoyte; Elizabeth S Kaufman; Michael H Kim; Elaine Nasco; Albert L Waldo Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2005-05-23
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: Barbara Bellmann; Tina Lin; Peter Ruppersberg; Marit Zettwitz; Selma Guttmann; Verena Tscholl; Patrick Nagel; Mattias Roser; Ulf Landmesser; Andreas Rillig Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2018-05-09 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Lara Wagner; Fabrice F Darche; Dierk Thomas; Patrick Lugenbiel; Panagiotis Xynogalos; Svenja Seide; Eberhard P Scholz; Hugo A Katus; Patrick A Schweizer Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2020-05-13 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