Waddah Maskoun1, Amjad Abualsuod2, Fuad Habash3,4, Mohammed E Madmani2, Khaldia Khaled5, Zaid Gheith6, Bilal Alqam7, John M Miller2, Srikanth Vallurupalli3,4. 1. Section of Electrophysiology, Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Henry Ford Hospital, 2799 W. Grand Blvd, Detroit, MI, 48202, USA. wmaskou1@hfhs.org. 2. Indiana University Health System, Indianapolis, IN, USA. 3. University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA. 4. Central of Arkansas Veterans Healthcare system, Little Rock, AR, USA. 5. Louisiana State University Shreveport, Shreveport, LA, USA. 6. University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, USA. 7. Presbyterian Hospital, Albuquerque, NM, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Catheter ablation is considered the mainstay treatment for drug-refractory atrial fibrillation (AF). The aims of our study were to compare the efficacy and safety of the most two currently approved approaches (point-by-point radiofrequency ablation (RFA), either with contact force (CF) or without contact force (nCF) catheters, and cryoballoon ablation (CBA)) in the Veterans Healthcare System. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of patients who underwent ablation for treatment of AF at the veterans affairs healthcare system between 2013 and 2018. Only the first reported ablation procedure was included. RESULTS: We included 956 patients in the study (97.4% males, 91.5% Caucasians, 67% paroxysmal AF), with 682 patients in RFA-nCF, 139 in RFA-CF, and 135 in CBA. Thirty-day complication rates were comparable between the three groups with the exception of higher incidence of phrenic nerve injury in CBA group when compared to RFA-nCF (2.2% vs 0.0%, p < 0.01). Long-term recurrence rate of AF was significantly lower in the CBA group when compared to RFA-nCF (33.3% vs 47.7%, adjusted HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.44-0.83, p < 0.01). On the other hand, it was similar between RFA-CF and RFA-nCF groups (43.9% vs 47.7%, adjusted HR 1.01, 95% CI 0.76-1.33, p 0.97). After stratifying patients based on AF type, these findings were only present in patients with paroxysmal AF. CONCLUSION: CBA for paroxysmal AF, in male dominant patients' population, was associated with lower incidence of AF recurrence rate while having a comparable safety profile to RFA independent of the use of CF catheters.
PURPOSE: Catheter ablation is considered the mainstay treatment for drug-refractory atrial fibrillation (AF). The aims of our study were to compare the efficacy and safety of the most two currently approved approaches (point-by-point radiofrequency ablation (RFA), either with contact force (CF) or without contact force (nCF) catheters, and cryoballoon ablation (CBA)) in the Veterans Healthcare System. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of patients who underwent ablation for treatment of AF at the veterans affairs healthcare system between 2013 and 2018. Only the first reported ablation procedure was included. RESULTS: We included 956 patients in the study (97.4% males, 91.5% Caucasians, 67% paroxysmal AF), with 682 patients in RFA-nCF, 139 in RFA-CF, and 135 in CBA. Thirty-day complication rates were comparable between the three groups with the exception of higher incidence of phrenic nerve injury in CBA group when compared to RFA-nCF (2.2% vs 0.0%, p < 0.01). Long-term recurrence rate of AF was significantly lower in the CBA group when compared to RFA-nCF (33.3% vs 47.7%, adjusted HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.44-0.83, p < 0.01). On the other hand, it was similar between RFA-CF and RFA-nCF groups (43.9% vs 47.7%, adjusted HR 1.01, 95% CI 0.76-1.33, p 0.97). After stratifying patients based on AF type, these findings were only present in patients with paroxysmal AF. CONCLUSION: CBA for paroxysmal AF, in male dominant patients' population, was associated with lower incidence of AF recurrence rate while having a comparable safety profile to RFA independent of the use of CF catheters.
Authors: Thomas Phlips; Philippe Taghji; Milad El Haddad; Michael Wolf; Sébastien Knecht; Yves Vandekerckhove; René Tavernier; Mattias Duytschaever Journal: Europace Date: 2018-11-01 Impact factor: 5.214
Authors: Karl-Heinz Kuck; Josep Brugada; Alexander Fürnkranz; K R Julian Chun; Andreas Metzner; Feifan Ouyang; Michael Schlüter; Arif Elvan; Kendra M Braegelmann; Fred J Kueffer; Thomas Arentz; Jean-Paul Albenque; Michael Kühne; Christian Sticherling; Claudio Tondo Journal: Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol Date: 2018-05
Authors: Andrea Natale; Vivek Y Reddy; George Monir; David J Wilber; Bruce D Lindsay; H Thomas McElderry; Charan Kantipudi; Moussa C Mansour; Daniel P Melby; Douglas L Packer; Hiroshi Nakagawa; Baohui Zhang; Robert B Stagg; Lee Ming Boo; Francis E Marchlinski Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2014-08-19 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Craig T January; L Samuel Wann; Joseph S Alpert; Hugh Calkins; Joaquin E Cigarroa; Joseph C Cleveland; Jamie B Conti; Patrick T Ellinor; Michael D Ezekowitz; Michael E Field; Katherine T Murray; Ralph L Sacco; William G Stevenson; Patrick J Tchou; Cynthia M Tracy; Clyde W Yancy Journal: Circulation Date: 2014-03-28 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Arash Aryana; Sheldon M Singh; Giacomo Mugnai; Carlo de Asmundis; Marcin Kowalski; Deep K Pujara; Andrew I Cohen; Steve K Singh; Charles E Fuenzalida; Nelson Prager; Mark R Bowers; Padraig Gearoid O'Neill; Pedro Brugada; André d'Avila; Gian-Battista Chierchia Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2016-07-30 Impact factor: 1.900
Authors: Hugh Calkins; Gerhard Hindricks; Riccardo Cappato; Young-Hoon Kim; Eduardo B Saad; Luis Aguinaga; Joseph G Akar; Vinay Badhwar; Josep Brugada; John Camm; Peng-Sheng Chen; Shih-Ann Chen; Mina K Chung; Jens Cosedis Nielsen; Anne B Curtis; D Wyn Davies; John D Day; André d'Avila; N M S Natasja de Groot; Luigi Di Biase; Mattias Duytschaever; James R Edgerton; Kenneth A Ellenbogen; Patrick T Ellinor; Sabine Ernst; Guilherme Fenelon; Edward P Gerstenfeld; David E Haines; Michel Haissaguerre; Robert H Helm; Elaine Hylek; Warren M Jackman; Jose Jalife; Jonathan M Kalman; Josef Kautzner; Hans Kottkamp; Karl Heinz Kuck; Koichiro Kumagai; Richard Lee; Thorsten Lewalter; Bruce D Lindsay; Laurent Macle; Moussa Mansour; Francis E Marchlinski; Gregory F Michaud; Hiroshi Nakagawa; Andrea Natale; Stanley Nattel; Ken Okumura; Douglas Packer; Evgeny Pokushalov; Matthew R Reynolds; Prashanthan Sanders; Mauricio Scanavacca; Richard Schilling; Claudio Tondo; Hsuan-Ming Tsao; Atul Verma; David J Wilber; Teiichi Yamane Journal: Europace Date: 2018-01-01 Impact factor: 5.214
Authors: Douglas L Packer; Robert C Kowal; Kevin R Wheelan; James M Irwin; Jean Champagne; Peter G Guerra; Marc Dubuc; Vivek Reddy; Linda Nelson; Richard G Holcomb; John W Lehmann; Jeremy N Ruskin Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2013-03-21 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Moloy Das; Jonathan J Loveday; Gareth J Wynn; Sean Gomes; Yawer Saeed; Laura J Bonnett; Johan E P Waktare; Derick M Todd; Mark C S Hall; Richard L Snowdon; Simon Modi; Dhiraj Gupta Journal: Europace Date: 2017-05-01 Impact factor: 5.214