AIMS: We sought out to make comparisons between all atrial fibrillation (AF) catheter ablation technologies using randomized controlled trial data. Our comparisons were freedom from AF, procedural duration, and fluoroscopy duration. METHODS: Searches were made of EMBASE, MEDLINE, and CENTRAL databases, and studies were selected which had cryoballoon, conventional radiofrequency (RF), multipolar RF catheters, and laser technology as an arm in the study and were identified as randomized controlled trials (RCTs). These studies were analyzed for direct comparisons using conventional meta-analysis and a combination of indirect and direct comparisons via a network meta-analysis (NMA). RESULTS: With respect to freedom from AF both direct comparisons and NMA did not demonstrate any significant difference. However in analysis of procedural and fluoroscopy duration (minutes) for the pulmonary vein ablation catheter (PVAC), both conventional analysis and NMA revealed significantly shorter procedure times, RF vs PVAC (conventional: 61.99 [38.03-85.94], P <.00001; NMA: 54.76 [36.64-72.88], P < .0001) and fluoroscopy times, RF vs PVAC (conventional: 12.96 [6.40-19.53], P = .0001; NMA: 8.89 [3.27-14.51], P < .01). The procedural duration was also shorter for the cryoballoon with NMA, RF vs CRYO (20.56 [3.47-37.65], P = .02). DISCUSSION: Our analysis demonstrated that while there was no difference in the efficacy of the individual catheter technologies, there are significant differences in the procedural duration for the PVAC and the cryoballoon. While they may seem an attractive solution for high-volume centers, further RCTs of next-generation technologies should be examined.
AIMS: We sought out to make comparisons between all atrial fibrillation (AF) catheter ablation technologies using randomized controlled trial data. Our comparisons were freedom from AF, procedural duration, and fluoroscopy duration. METHODS: Searches were made of EMBASE, MEDLINE, and CENTRAL databases, and studies were selected which had cryoballoon, conventional radiofrequency (RF), multipolar RF catheters, and laser technology as an arm in the study and were identified as randomized controlled trials (RCTs). These studies were analyzed for direct comparisons using conventional meta-analysis and a combination of indirect and direct comparisons via a network meta-analysis (NMA). RESULTS: With respect to freedom from AF both direct comparisons and NMA did not demonstrate any significant difference. However in analysis of procedural and fluoroscopy duration (minutes) for the pulmonary vein ablation catheter (PVAC), both conventional analysis and NMA revealed significantly shorter procedure times, RF vs PVAC (conventional: 61.99 [38.03-85.94], P <.00001; NMA: 54.76 [36.64-72.88], P < .0001) and fluoroscopy times, RF vs PVAC (conventional: 12.96 [6.40-19.53], P = .0001; NMA: 8.89 [3.27-14.51], P < .01). The procedural duration was also shorter for the cryoballoon with NMA, RF vs CRYO (20.56 [3.47-37.65], P = .02). DISCUSSION: Our analysis demonstrated that while there was no difference in the efficacy of the individual catheter technologies, there are significant differences in the procedural duration for the PVAC and the cryoballoon. While they may seem an attractive solution for high-volume centers, further RCTs of next-generation technologies should be examined.
Authors: M N Klaver; L I S Wintgens; M C E F Wijffels; V F van Dijk; A Alipour; S M Chaldoupi; R Derksen; J Peper; J C Balt; L V A Boersma Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2022-05-23 Impact factor: 1.900