PURPOSE: Cryoballoon (CB) technology in the context of anatomical pulmonary vein (PV) variants might hypothetically hamper successful PV isolation (PVI). Our aim was to assess the impact of a right middle PV (RMPV) in the setting of second-generation cryoballoon (CB advance-CB-A), on procedural parameters and on mid-term follow-up. METHODS: Consecutive patients with AF presenting RMPV (RMPV+) at the pre-procedural computed tomography who underwent PVI by CB-A were enrolled. Comparison with propensity score-matched patients without RMPV (RMPV-) was performed. Acute procedural parameters and clinical follow-up were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 240 patients (80 RMPV+) were included in the analysis. Twelve of 80 (15%) RMPV+ patients underwent a direct cryo-application in this variant and accomplished the isolation without phrenic nerve palsy, whereas in 25 of 80 (31%) RMPV+ patients, the RMPVs were not targeted directly nor indirectly (by co-occlusion during application at a major PV). At a median follow-up of 17.3 [interquartile range 11.3-26.5] months, there was no significant difference in AF-free survival between RMPV+ and RMPV- patients (78.8 vs 78.1%, P = 1.00), and the recurrence of atrial arrhythmias among patients with versus without an intentional or indirect cryo-application to the RMPV was not different (22 vs 20%, P = 1.00). CONCLUSIONS: Mid-term outcome after CB-A ablation did not differ between RMPV+ and RMPV- patients. Within RMPV+ patients, outcome was similar between those with versus without a cryo-application (either direct or indirect) to the additional vein.
PURPOSE: Cryoballoon (CB) technology in the context of anatomical pulmonary vein (PV) variants might hypothetically hamper successful PV isolation (PVI). Our aim was to assess the impact of a right middle PV (RMPV) in the setting of second-generation cryoballoon (CB advance-CB-A), on procedural parameters and on mid-term follow-up. METHODS: Consecutive patients with AF presenting RMPV (RMPV+) at the pre-procedural computed tomography who underwent PVI by CB-A were enrolled. Comparison with propensity score-matched patients without RMPV (RMPV-) was performed. Acute procedural parameters and clinical follow-up were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 240 patients (80 RMPV+) were included in the analysis. Twelve of 80 (15%) RMPV+ patients underwent a direct cryo-application in this variant and accomplished the isolation without phrenic nerve palsy, whereas in 25 of 80 (31%) RMPV+ patients, the RMPVs were not targeted directly nor indirectly (by co-occlusion during application at a major PV). At a median follow-up of 17.3 [interquartile range 11.3-26.5] months, there was no significant difference in AF-free survival between RMPV+ and RMPV- patients (78.8 vs 78.1%, P = 1.00), and the recurrence of atrial arrhythmias among patients with versus without an intentional or indirect cryo-application to the RMPV was not different (22 vs 20%, P = 1.00). CONCLUSIONS: Mid-term outcome after CB-A ablation did not differ between RMPV+ and RMPV- patients. Within RMPV+ patients, outcome was similar between those with versus without a cryo-application (either direct or indirect) to the additional vein.
Authors: Aditi S Vaishnav; Edris Alderwish; Kristie M Coleman; Moussa Saleh; Parth Makker; Kabir Bhasin; Neil E Bernstein; Nicholas T Skipitaris; Stavros E Mountantonakis Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2020-06-30 Impact factor: 1.900