BACKGROUND: A left common pulmonary vein (LCPV) accounts as the most frequent pulmonary vein (PV) variation. Our aim was to compare the performance of radiofrequency (RF) versus second-generation cryoballoon (CB-A) ablation in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and LCPVs. METHODS: In a total cohort of 716 patients undergoing PV isolation with preprocedural CT-scanning, LCPV+ patients were selected with measurement of PV ostial area and trunk distance. All LCPV+ patients were matched between RF and CB-A group in a 1:1 ratio based on propensity scores, and compared for outcome. RESULTS: Left common pulmonary veins were found in 31% (88/283) RF versus 34% (146/433) CB-A patients, respectively, (P = .44). In the matched population of 83 LCPV+ patients in each group, electrical isolation could be achieved in all left-sided PVs. No significant difference was noted for the rate of AF/left atrial tachyarrhythmia (LAT) recurrence between RF and CB-A group (30% vs 28%, P = .86), with similar AF/LAT-free survival (log rank, P = .71). There were 48 patients with AF/LAT recurrence (29%) during the follow-up. Recurrence rate between paroxysmal versus persistent AF was 27/120 (22.5%) versus 21/46 (46%), P = .004. Cox proportional regression analysis withheld LA volume and persistent AF as independent variables to predict AF/LAT recurrence. No increased hazard for AF/LAT recurrence was observed for patients with a long (>15 mm) vs short (5-15 mm) LCPV trunk (OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.6-2.2, P = .7). CONCLUSIONS: In our study, equal efficacy and outcome was noted in LCPV+ patients between RF and CB-A technology.
BACKGROUND: A left common pulmonary vein (LCPV) accounts as the most frequent pulmonary vein (PV) variation. Our aim was to compare the performance of radiofrequency (RF) versus second-generation cryoballoon (CB-A) ablation in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and LCPVs. METHODS: In a total cohort of 716 patients undergoing PV isolation with preprocedural CT-scanning, LCPV+ patients were selected with measurement of PV ostial area and trunk distance. All LCPV+ patients were matched between RF and CB-A group in a 1:1 ratio based on propensity scores, and compared for outcome. RESULTS: Left common pulmonary veins were found in 31% (88/283) RF versus 34% (146/433) CB-Apatients, respectively, (P = .44). In the matched population of 83 LCPV+ patients in each group, electrical isolation could be achieved in all left-sided PVs. No significant difference was noted for the rate of AF/left atrial tachyarrhythmia (LAT) recurrence between RF and CB-A group (30% vs 28%, P = .86), with similar AF/LAT-free survival (log rank, P = .71). There were 48 patients with AF/LAT recurrence (29%) during the follow-up. Recurrence rate between paroxysmal versus persistent AF was 27/120 (22.5%) versus 21/46 (46%), P = .004. Cox proportional regression analysis withheld LA volume and persistent AF as independent variables to predict AF/LAT recurrence. No increased hazard for AF/LAT recurrence was observed for patients with a long (>15 mm) vs short (5-15 mm) LCPV trunk (OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.6-2.2, P = .7). CONCLUSIONS: In our study, equal efficacy and outcome was noted in LCPV+ patients between RF and CB-A technology.