| Literature DB >> 35119586 |
Masaomi Kimura1, Atsushi Kobori2, Junichi Nitta3, Kenzo Hirao4, Satoshi Shizuta5, Takashi Kurita6, Kaoru Okishige7, Koichiro Kumagai8, Junjiro Koyama9, Kenichi Hiroshima10, Osamu Inaba11, Masahiko Goya4, Yasuteru Yamauchi12, Fred J Kueffer13, Daniel Becker14, Ken Okumura9.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Catheter ablation is a recommended rhythm control therapy after failed or intolerant antiarrhythmic drug (AAD) treatment for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). This study evaluates clinical performance and safety of pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) using the cryoballoon (Arctic Front Advance) in Japan.Entities:
Keywords: Antiarrhythmic drug; Atrial fibrillation; Catheter ablation; Cryoballoon; Pulmonary vein isolation
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35119586 PMCID: PMC9470593 DOI: 10.1007/s10840-022-01132-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol ISSN: 1383-875X Impact factor: 1.759
Fig. 1Patient flow. Patient enrollment and follow-up
Baseline patient characteristics
| Patient characteristics | ( |
|---|---|
| Female sex ( | 126 (35.8%) |
| Age in years (mean ± STD) | 65 ± 10 |
| Body mass index in kg/m2 (mean ± STD) | 24 ± 4 |
| Paroxysmal AF | 352 (100%) |
| CHA2DS2-VASc score (mean ± SD) | 2.2 ± 1.6 |
| Years diagnosed with AF (mean ± STD) | 3.0 ± 5.5 |
| History of atrial flutter ( | 25 (7.1%) |
| History of atrial tachycardia ( | 6 (1.7%) |
| Left atrial diameter in mm (mean ± STD)1 | 38 ± 6 |
| Left ventricular ejection fraction in % (mean ± STD)2 | 66 ± 8 |
| Number of failed AADs (mean ± STD) | 0.7 ± 0.7 |
| 128 (36.4%) | |
| 8 (2.3%) | |
| 120 (34.1%) | |
| 158 (44.9%) | |
| 29 (8.2%) | |
| 5 (1.4%) | |
| 32 (9.1%) | |
| Hypertension ( | 188 (53.4%) |
| Prior cardiac device implant ( | 6 (1.7%) |
| | 2 (0.6%) |
| | 4 (1.1%) |
| Prior atrial flutter ablation | 5 (1.4%) |
| Prior PVI | 0 (0.0%) |
| History of congestive heart failure ( | 8 (2.3%) |
| NYHA classification | |
| 241 (68.5%) | |
| 55 (15.6%) | |
| 3 (0.9%) | |
| 0 (0.0%) | |
| 0 (0.0%) | |
| 53 (15.1%) | |
| Prior myocardial infarction ( | 8 (2.3%) |
| Prior stroke/transient ischemic attack ( | 26 (7.4%) |
| Coronary artery disease ( | 14 (4.0%) |
| Diabetes ( | 41 (11.6%) |
| Sleep apnea ( | 10 (2.8%) |
AAD, Class I and III antiarrhythmic drugs; PVI, pulmonary vein isolation procedure; NYHA, New York Heart Association classification
1Left atrial diameter reported in 317/352 patients
2Left ventricular ejection fraction reported in 341/352 patients
Index procedure characteristics
| Procedural characteristics | ( |
|---|---|
| Ablation catheter used | |
| 352 (100%) | |
| Mapping catheter model | |
| 301 (85.5%) | |
| 48 (13.6%) | |
| Total lab occupancy time in minutes (mean ± STD) | 134 ± 41 |
| Total procedure time in minutes (mean ± STD) | 73 ± 26 |
| Left atrial dwell time in minutes (mean ± STD) | 45 ± 19 |
| Total fluoroscopy time in minutes (mean ± STD) | 48 ± 36 |
| Fluoroscopy time during cryoablation in minutes (mean ± STD) | 24 ± 20 |
| Total cryoapplication duration in minutes7 (mean ± STD) | 15 ± 4 |
| Sedation method (N (%)) | |
| 38 (10.8%) | |
| 314 (89.2%) | |
| Pre-procedural imaging (CT and/or MRI) | 163 (46.3%) |
| Intra-procedural 3D electroanatomical mapping | 128 (36.4%) |
| Intracardiac echocardiography | 189 (53.7%) |
| Esophageal temperature monitoring ( | 324 (92.0%) |
| Pulmonary vein venography | 348 (98.9%) |
| Phrenic nerve monitoring | 352 (100.0%) |
| 273 (77.6%) | |
| 127 (36.1%) | |
| 267 (75.9%) | |
| 37 (10.5%) | |
| Pulmonary vein ablation acute success1 ( | 337 (95.7%) |
| 4 (1.1%) | |
| 19 (5.4%) | |
| Isoproterenol and/or adenosine to assess PVI ( | 144 (40.9%) |
| Non-PVI ablation (CTI or non-CTI) | 147 (41.8%) |
| CTI (cavotricuspid isthmus) | 119 (33.8%) |
| Non-PVI non-CTI ablation | 38 (10.8%) |
| 15 (4.3%) | |
| 2 (0.6%) | |
| 12 (3.4%) | |
| 3 (0.9%) | |
| 9 (2.6%) | |
| Cryoballoon applications | |
| | 1903 |
| | 1410 |
| 284 (80.7%) | |
| 1.3 ± 0.7 | |
| 1 (1, 2) | |
| 1410 | |
| 172 ± 44 | |
| 180 (165, 180) | |
| 1903 | |
| − 48.6 ± 6.6 | |
| − 48 (− 54, − 44) | |
| 1410 |
1All targeted pulmonary veins isolated
Serious device- or procedure-related adverse events
| Adverse events, events (patients#, % patients) | Serious device- or procedure-related |
|---|---|
| Total | 9 (9, 2.6%) |
| | 2 (2, 0.6%) |
| | 3 (3, 0.9%) |
| | 1 (1, 0.3%) |
| | 1 (1, 0.3%) |
| | 1 (1, 0.3%) |
| | 1 (1, 0.3%) |
#Efficacy Analysis Cohort: total patients with an index procedure (N = 352)
*All PNI were resolved at 6 months
Fig. 2Freedom from atrial arrhythmia recurrence. Kaplan–Meier 24-month estimate of freedom from ≥ 30-s recurrences of AF/AFL/AT after a 90-day blanking period
Repeat ablations
| Repeat ablations, events (patients, % patients) | Days 1–90 | Days 90 + | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total | 11 (1, 0.3%) | 242,3 (24, 6.8%) | 25 (25, 7.1%) |
| | 1 (1,0.3%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (1,0.3%) |
| | 0 (0%) | 14 (14,4.0%) | 14 (14,4.0%) |
| | 1 (1,0.3%) | 14 (14,4.0%) | 15 (15,4.3%) |
| | 0 (0%) | 8 (8,2.3%) | 8 (8,2.3%) |
| | 0 (0%) | 15 (15,4.3%) | 15 (15,4.3%) |
1Occurred on day 45 post-index procedure
2One patient reported a repeat ablation but details of what lesions were performed were not reported
323 repeat ablations occurred within 1 year (days 100–359), 1 repeat ablation occurred on day 704
Fig. 3AF symptoms at baseline and 12 months. AF symptoms in 327 patients with information available during baseline and 12-month visit. *Including only patients with information on symptoms during baseline and 12-month follow-up (N = 327)
Quality of life as measured by EQ-5D-3L
| Baseline | 12 months | Difference | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Health state index3 | 0.917 ± 0.141 | 0.931 ± 0.125 | 0.014 ± 0.149 | 0.09 |
| Visual analog scale4 | 74.5 ± 15.8 | 80.3 ± 14.5 | 5.8 ± 18.4 | < 0.01 |
1Of the 352 patients in the Efficacy Analysis Cohort, 326 completed a 12-month visit, of which 321 completed an EQ-5D questionnaire at both baseline and 12 months
2t-test
3Summary index score ranging from 0 to 1.00 with higher scores indicating a better health-related quality of life
4A vertical visual-analog scale on which patients provide a global assessment of their health, ranging from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating a better health related quality of life