Karl-Heinz Kuck1, Jean-Paul Albenque2, K.R. Julian Chun3, Alexander Fürnkranz4, Mathias Busch5, Arif Elvan6, Michael Schlüter1, Kendra M. Braegelmann7, Fred J. Kueffer7, Lauren Hemingway7, Thomas Arentz8, Claudio Tondo9, Josep Brugada10. 1. Asklepios Klinik St Georg, Hamburg, Germany (K.-H.K., M.S.). 2. Clinique Pasteur, Toulouse, France (J.-P.A.). 3. Cardioangiologisches Centrum Bethanien, Frankfurt (K.R.J.C.). 4. Universitätsklinikum Düsseldorf (A.F.). 5. Universitätsmedizin, Greifswald, Germany (M.B.). 6. Isala Klinieken, Zwolle, the Netherlands (A.E.). 7. Medtronic, Inc, Minneapolis, MN (K.M.B., F.J.K., L.H.). 8. University Heart Center Freiburg-Bad Krozingen, Germany (T.A.). 9. Heart Rhythm Center at Centro Cardiologico Monzino, IRCCS Department of Clinical Sciences and Community Health, University of Milan, Italy (C.T.). 10. Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, Spain (J.B.).
Abstract
Background: The FIRE AND ICE trial assessed efficacy and safety of pulmonary vein (PV) isolation using cryoballoon versus radiofrequency current (RFC) ablation in patients with drug refractory, symptomatic, paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF). The purpose of the current study was to assess index lesion durability as well as reablation strategy and outcomes in trial patients undergoing a reablation procedure. Methods: Patients with reablation procedures during FIRE AND ICEwere retrospectively consented and enrolled at 13 trial centers. The first reablation for each patient was included in the analysis. Documented arrhythmias before reablation, number and location of reconnected PVs, lesions created during reablations, procedural characteristics, and acute as well as long-term outcomes were assessed. Results: Eighty-nine (36 cryoballoon and 53 RFC) patients were included in this study. Paroxysmal atrial fibrillation was the predominant recurrent arrhythmia (69%) before reablation. Reablations occurred at a median of 173 and 182 days (P=0.54) in the cryoballoon and RFC cohorts, respectively. The number of reconnected PVs was significantly higher in the RFC than the cryoballoon group (2.1±1.4 versus 1.4±1.1; P=0.010), which was driven by significantly more reconnected left superior PVs and markedly more reconnected right superior PVs. The number of (predominantly RFC) lesions applied during reablation was significantly greater in patients originally treated with RFC (3.3±1.3 versus 2.5±1.5; P=0.015) with no difference in overall acute success (P=0.70). After reablation, no differences in procedure-related rehospitalization or antiarrhythmic drug utilization were observed between cohorts. Conclusions: At reablation, patients originally treated with the cryoballoon had significantly fewer reconnected PVs, which may reflect RFC catheter instability in certain left atrial regions, and thus required fewer lesions for reablation success. Repeat ablations were predominantly performed with RFC and resulted in similar acute success, duration of hospitalization, and antiarrhythmic drug prescription between the study cohorts.
Background: The FIRE AND ICE trial assessed efficacy and safety of pulmonary vein (PV) isolation using cryoballoon versus radiofrequency current (RFC) ablation in patients with drug refractory, symptomatic, paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF). The purpose of the current study was to assess index lesion durability as well as reablation strategy and outcomes in trial patients undergoing a reablation procedure. Methods:Patients with reablation procedures during FIRE AND ICEwere retrospectively consented and enrolled at 13 trial centers. The first reablation for each patient was included in the analysis. Documented arrhythmias before reablation, number and location of reconnected PVs, lesions created during reablations, procedural characteristics, and acute as well as long-term outcomes were assessed. Results: Eighty-nine (36 cryoballoon and 53 RFC) patients were included in this study. Paroxysmal atrial fibrillation was the predominant recurrent arrhythmia (69%) before reablation. Reablations occurred at a median of 173 and 182 days (P=0.54) in the cryoballoon and RFC cohorts, respectively. The number of reconnected PVs was significantly higher in the RFC than the cryoballoon group (2.1±1.4 versus 1.4±1.1; P=0.010), which was driven by significantly more reconnected left superior PVs and markedly more reconnected right superior PVs. The number of (predominantly RFC) lesions applied during reablation was significantly greater in patients originally treated with RFC (3.3±1.3 versus 2.5±1.5; P=0.015) with no difference in overall acute success (P=0.70). After reablation, no differences in procedure-related rehospitalization or antiarrhythmic drug utilization were observed between cohorts. Conclusions: At reablation, patients originally treated with the cryoballoon had significantly fewer reconnected PVs, which may reflect RFC catheter instability in certain left atrial regions, and thus required fewer lesions for reablation success. Repeat ablations were predominantly performed with RFC and resulted in similar acute success, duration of hospitalization, and antiarrhythmic drug prescription between the study cohorts.
Authors: Ivan Zeljkovic; Sven Knecht; Florian Spies; Tobias Reichlin; Stefan Osswald; Michael Kühne; Christian Sticherling Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2020-01-07 Impact factor: 1.900
Authors: Julian Chun; Tilman Maurer; Andreas Rillig; Stefano Bordignon; Leon Iden; Sonia Busch; Daniel Steven; Roland R Tilz; Dong-In Shin; Heidi Estner; Felix Bourier; David Duncker; Philipp Sommer; Nils-Christian Ewertsen; Henning Jansen; Victoria Johnson; Livio Bertagnolli; Till Althoff; Andreas Metzner Journal: Herzschrittmacherther Elektrophysiol Date: 2021-11-04
Authors: Sven Knecht; Ivan Zeljkovic; Michael Kühne; Christian Sticherling; Patrick Badertscher; Philipp Krisai; Florian Spies; Jan Vognstrup; Nikola Pavlovic; Sime Manola; Stefan Osswald Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2022-08-18 Impact factor: 1.759
Authors: Pedro A Sousa; Luís Puga; Luís Adão; João Primo; Ziad Khoueiry; Ana Lebreiro; Paulo Fonseca; Philippe Lagrange; Luís Elvas; Lino Gonçalves Journal: J Arrhythm Date: 2022-03-15
Authors: Aditi S Vaishnav; Evan Levine; Kristie M Coleman; Stuart J Beldner; Jason S Chinitz; Kabir Bhasin; Neil E Bernstein; Nicholas T Skipitaris; Stavros E Mountantonakis Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2019-10-25 Impact factor: 1.900
Authors: Shinwan Kany; Bruno Reissmann; Andreas Metzner; Paulus Kirchhof; Dawood Darbar; Renate B Schnabel Journal: Cardiovasc Res Date: 2021-06-16 Impact factor: 10.787
Authors: Marek Jastrzębski; Grzegorz Kiełbasa; Kamil Fijorek; Adam Bednarski; Aleksander Kusiak; Tomasz Sondej; Agnieszka Bednarek; Pawel Lis; Agnieszka Olszanecka; Marek Rajzer Journal: Postepy Kardiol Interwencyjnej Date: 2020-12-29 Impact factor: 1.426