Cargando…

Comparison of pulsed field ablation and cryoballoon ablation in atrial fibrillation

FUNDING ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: Type of funding sources: None. BACKGROUND: Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) using cryoballoon (CB) catheter ablation has emerged as a cornerstone for treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF). Recently pulsed field ablation (PFA) has been introduced for PVI. First data show high...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Schipper, J, Dittrich, S, Erlhoefer, S, Scheurlen, C, Woermann, J, Van Den Bruck, J, Filipovic, K, Pavel, F, Lueker, J, Steven, D, Sultan, A
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10207160/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/europace/euad122.085
_version_ 1785046389165654016
author Schipper, J
Dittrich, S
Erlhoefer, S
Scheurlen, C
Woermann, J
Van Den Bruck, J
Filipovic, K
Pavel, F
Lueker, J
Steven, D
Sultan, A
author_facet Schipper, J
Dittrich, S
Erlhoefer, S
Scheurlen, C
Woermann, J
Van Den Bruck, J
Filipovic, K
Pavel, F
Lueker, J
Steven, D
Sultan, A
author_sort Schipper, J
collection PubMed
description FUNDING ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: Type of funding sources: None. BACKGROUND: Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) using cryoballoon (CB) catheter ablation has emerged as a cornerstone for treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF). Recently pulsed field ablation (PFA) has been introduced for PVI. First data show high acute and favorable long-term outcome. So far, data comparing these "single shot" devices is sparse. OBJECTIVE: This analysis sought to provide procedural and outcome data comparing PFA to CB PVI. Furthermore, potentially postprocedural discomfort was evaluated. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of PVI procedures using PFA or CB was performed. Discomfort analysis was obtained by prescribed analgesic medication within first 48 h after PVI (fully digital patient file). During follow-up (FU) repeat outpatient visits and Holter ECG were performed. RESULTS: In all 108 patients with AF (54 PFA and 54 CB; PFA: 37 (69 %) men; CB: 38 (70 %) men) successful PVI was achieved. There were no significant differences regarding baseline characteristics. 17 (31 %) patients in the PFA group and 18 (33 %) patients in the CB group had paroxysmal AF. Procedure time trended to be shorter in the PFA group (PFA: 64.5±17.5 minutes; CB: 73.0±24.8 minutes; p=0.07). Sub-analysis of the PFA group revealed a significant shortening of procedure duration over time (first 27 PFA vs. second 27 PFA: 72.9±19.1 minutes vs. 56.1±10.7 minutes, p=0.001). Significantly less contrast medium was used for PFA PVI as compared to CB PVI (PFA: 12± 6 ml; CB: 51± 29 ml, p<0.0001). Fluoroscopy time was significantly longer for PFA PVI (PFA: 15.3±4.7 minutes, CB: 12.3±5.3 minutes; p=0.001). Analysis of postprocedural analgesic medication demand did not differ between PFA and CB PVI (PFA: 7 patients; CB: 10 patients; p=0.59). After a FU of 234±127 days 79% of patients remained in SR after PFA and 78% after CB PVI (p=0.88). In the PFA group 2 non-device related cardiac tamponades occurred. CONCLUSION: A comparison of PFA to CB PVI revealed a comparable efficacy and safety profile with a steep learning curve and potentially shorter procedure duration. Amount of contrast medium is significantly higher for CB PVI. So far, arrhythmia-free survival seems to be still equal between both techniques. However, PFA is a safe and effective alternative to CB for PVI.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10207160
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-102071602023-05-25 Comparison of pulsed field ablation and cryoballoon ablation in atrial fibrillation Schipper, J Dittrich, S Erlhoefer, S Scheurlen, C Woermann, J Van Den Bruck, J Filipovic, K Pavel, F Lueker, J Steven, D Sultan, A Europace 10.4.5 - Rhythm Control, Catheter Ablation FUNDING ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: Type of funding sources: None. BACKGROUND: Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) using cryoballoon (CB) catheter ablation has emerged as a cornerstone for treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF). Recently pulsed field ablation (PFA) has been introduced for PVI. First data show high acute and favorable long-term outcome. So far, data comparing these "single shot" devices is sparse. OBJECTIVE: This analysis sought to provide procedural and outcome data comparing PFA to CB PVI. Furthermore, potentially postprocedural discomfort was evaluated. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of PVI procedures using PFA or CB was performed. Discomfort analysis was obtained by prescribed analgesic medication within first 48 h after PVI (fully digital patient file). During follow-up (FU) repeat outpatient visits and Holter ECG were performed. RESULTS: In all 108 patients with AF (54 PFA and 54 CB; PFA: 37 (69 %) men; CB: 38 (70 %) men) successful PVI was achieved. There were no significant differences regarding baseline characteristics. 17 (31 %) patients in the PFA group and 18 (33 %) patients in the CB group had paroxysmal AF. Procedure time trended to be shorter in the PFA group (PFA: 64.5±17.5 minutes; CB: 73.0±24.8 minutes; p=0.07). Sub-analysis of the PFA group revealed a significant shortening of procedure duration over time (first 27 PFA vs. second 27 PFA: 72.9±19.1 minutes vs. 56.1±10.7 minutes, p=0.001). Significantly less contrast medium was used for PFA PVI as compared to CB PVI (PFA: 12± 6 ml; CB: 51± 29 ml, p<0.0001). Fluoroscopy time was significantly longer for PFA PVI (PFA: 15.3±4.7 minutes, CB: 12.3±5.3 minutes; p=0.001). Analysis of postprocedural analgesic medication demand did not differ between PFA and CB PVI (PFA: 7 patients; CB: 10 patients; p=0.59). After a FU of 234±127 days 79% of patients remained in SR after PFA and 78% after CB PVI (p=0.88). In the PFA group 2 non-device related cardiac tamponades occurred. CONCLUSION: A comparison of PFA to CB PVI revealed a comparable efficacy and safety profile with a steep learning curve and potentially shorter procedure duration. Amount of contrast medium is significantly higher for CB PVI. So far, arrhythmia-free survival seems to be still equal between both techniques. However, PFA is a safe and effective alternative to CB for PVI. Oxford University Press 2023-05-24 /pmc/articles/PMC10207160/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/europace/euad122.085 Text en © The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial reproduction and distribution of the work, in any medium, provided the original work is not altered or transformed in any way, and that the work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com
spellingShingle 10.4.5 - Rhythm Control, Catheter Ablation
Schipper, J
Dittrich, S
Erlhoefer, S
Scheurlen, C
Woermann, J
Van Den Bruck, J
Filipovic, K
Pavel, F
Lueker, J
Steven, D
Sultan, A
Comparison of pulsed field ablation and cryoballoon ablation in atrial fibrillation
title Comparison of pulsed field ablation and cryoballoon ablation in atrial fibrillation
title_full Comparison of pulsed field ablation and cryoballoon ablation in atrial fibrillation
title_fullStr Comparison of pulsed field ablation and cryoballoon ablation in atrial fibrillation
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of pulsed field ablation and cryoballoon ablation in atrial fibrillation
title_short Comparison of pulsed field ablation and cryoballoon ablation in atrial fibrillation
title_sort comparison of pulsed field ablation and cryoballoon ablation in atrial fibrillation
topic 10.4.5 - Rhythm Control, Catheter Ablation
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10207160/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/europace/euad122.085
work_keys_str_mv AT schipperj comparisonofpulsedfieldablationandcryoballoonablationinatrialfibrillation
AT dittrichs comparisonofpulsedfieldablationandcryoballoonablationinatrialfibrillation
AT erlhoefers comparisonofpulsedfieldablationandcryoballoonablationinatrialfibrillation
AT scheurlenc comparisonofpulsedfieldablationandcryoballoonablationinatrialfibrillation
AT woermannj comparisonofpulsedfieldablationandcryoballoonablationinatrialfibrillation
AT vandenbruckj comparisonofpulsedfieldablationandcryoballoonablationinatrialfibrillation
AT filipovick comparisonofpulsedfieldablationandcryoballoonablationinatrialfibrillation
AT pavelf comparisonofpulsedfieldablationandcryoballoonablationinatrialfibrillation
AT luekerj comparisonofpulsedfieldablationandcryoballoonablationinatrialfibrillation
AT stevend comparisonofpulsedfieldablationandcryoballoonablationinatrialfibrillation
AT sultana comparisonofpulsedfieldablationandcryoballoonablationinatrialfibrillation