Cargando…

Outcomes of pulmonary vein isolation with radiofrequency balloon vs. cryoballoon ablation: a multi-centric study

AIMS: Cryoballoon (CB) ablation is the mainstay of single-shot pulmonary vein isolation (PVI). A radiofrequency balloon (RFB) catheter has recently emerged as an alternative. However, these two technologies have not been compared. This study aims to evaluate the freedom from atrial tachyarrhythmias...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Almorad, Alexandre, Del Monte, Alvise, Della Rocca, Domenico Giovanni, Pannone, Luigi, Ramak, Robbert, Overeinder, Ingrid, Bala, Gezim, Ströker, Erwin, Sieira, Juan, Dubois, Aurélie, Sorgente, Antonio, El Haddad, Milad, Iacopino, Saverio, Boveda, Serge, de Asmundis, Carlo, Chierchia, Gian-Battista
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10481252/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37671682
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/europace/euad252
Descripción
Sumario:AIMS: Cryoballoon (CB) ablation is the mainstay of single-shot pulmonary vein isolation (PVI). A radiofrequency balloon (RFB) catheter has recently emerged as an alternative. However, these two technologies have not been compared. This study aims to evaluate the freedom from atrial tachyarrhythmias (ATas) at 1 year: procedural characteristics, efficacy, and safety of the novel RFB compared with CB for PVI in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS AND RESULTS: This prospective multi-centre study included consecutive patients with symptomatic drug-resistant paroxysmal AF who underwent PVI with RFB or CB between July 2021 and January 2022 from three European centres. A total of 375 consecutive patients were included, 125 in the RFB group and 250 in the CB. Both groups had comparable clinical characteristics. At 12.33 ± 4.91 months, ATas-free rates were 83.20% and 82.00% in the RFB and CB groups, respectively (P > 0.05). Compared with the CB group, the RFB group showed a shorter procedure time [59.91 (45.80–77.12) vs. 77.0 (35.13–122.71) min (P < 0.001)], dwell time [19.59 (14.41–30.24) vs. 27.03 (17.11–57.21) min (P = 0.04)], time to isolation, and thermal energy delivery in all pulmonary veins (P < 0.001). First-pass isolation was comparable. No major complications occurred in either group, with no stroke, atrio-oesophageal fistula, or permanent phrenic nerve injury. Transient phrenic nerve palsy occurred more frequently with CB than RFB (7.20% vs. 3.20%; P = 0.02). Oesophageal temperature rise occurred in 21 (16.8%) patients in the RFB group, and gastroscopy showed erythema in two of them with complete recovery after 30 days. CONCLUSIONS: The RFB appears to have a safety and efficacy profile similar to that of the CB for PVI. Shorter procedural times appear to be driven by shorter left atrial dwell and thermal delivery times.