Cargando…

Learning curves in atrial fibrillation ablation – A comparison between second generation cryoballoon and contact force sensing radiofrequency catheters

OBJECTIVE: To examine the learning curves of atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation comparing the cryoballoon (CB) and radiofrequency (RF) catheters. METHODS: We performed a retrospective data analysis from the initiation of AF ablation program in our center. For CB ablation, a second generation 28 mm ba...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Velagic, Vedran, Prepolec, Ivan, Pasara, Vedran, Puljevic, Mislav, Puljevic, Davor, Planinc, Ivo, Samardzic, Jure, Milicic, Davor
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7691769/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33007406
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ipej.2020.09.003
_version_ 1783614363874099200
author Velagic, Vedran
Prepolec, Ivan
Pasara, Vedran
Puljevic, Mislav
Puljevic, Davor
Planinc, Ivo
Samardzic, Jure
Milicic, Davor
author_facet Velagic, Vedran
Prepolec, Ivan
Pasara, Vedran
Puljevic, Mislav
Puljevic, Davor
Planinc, Ivo
Samardzic, Jure
Milicic, Davor
author_sort Velagic, Vedran
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To examine the learning curves of atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation comparing the cryoballoon (CB) and radiofrequency (RF) catheters. METHODS: We performed a retrospective data analysis from the initiation of AF ablation program in our center. For CB ablation, a second generation 28 mm balloon was utilized and for RF ablation. RESULTS: A total of 100 consecutive patients (50 in each group) have been enrolled in the study (male 74%, mean age 58.9 ± 10 years, paroxysmal AF 85%). The mean procedure time was shorter for CB (116.6 ± 39.8 min) than RF group (191.8 ± 101.1 min) (p < 0.001). There was no difference in the mean fluoroscopy time, 24.2 ± 10.6 min in RF and 22.4 ± 11.7 min in CB group, (p = 0.422). Seven major complications occurred during the study; 5 in RF group (10%) and 2 in CB group (4%) (p = 0.436). After the mean follow up of 14.5 ± 2.4 months, 15 patients in RF group (30%) and 11 in CB group (26%) experienced AF recurrences (P = 0.300). CONCLUSION: When starting a new AF ablation program, our results suggest that CB significantly shortens procedure while fluoroscopy time and clinical outcomes are comparable to RF ablation.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7691769
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-76917692020-12-07 Learning curves in atrial fibrillation ablation – A comparison between second generation cryoballoon and contact force sensing radiofrequency catheters Velagic, Vedran Prepolec, Ivan Pasara, Vedran Puljevic, Mislav Puljevic, Davor Planinc, Ivo Samardzic, Jure Milicic, Davor Indian Pacing Electrophysiol J Original Article OBJECTIVE: To examine the learning curves of atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation comparing the cryoballoon (CB) and radiofrequency (RF) catheters. METHODS: We performed a retrospective data analysis from the initiation of AF ablation program in our center. For CB ablation, a second generation 28 mm balloon was utilized and for RF ablation. RESULTS: A total of 100 consecutive patients (50 in each group) have been enrolled in the study (male 74%, mean age 58.9 ± 10 years, paroxysmal AF 85%). The mean procedure time was shorter for CB (116.6 ± 39.8 min) than RF group (191.8 ± 101.1 min) (p < 0.001). There was no difference in the mean fluoroscopy time, 24.2 ± 10.6 min in RF and 22.4 ± 11.7 min in CB group, (p = 0.422). Seven major complications occurred during the study; 5 in RF group (10%) and 2 in CB group (4%) (p = 0.436). After the mean follow up of 14.5 ± 2.4 months, 15 patients in RF group (30%) and 11 in CB group (26%) experienced AF recurrences (P = 0.300). CONCLUSION: When starting a new AF ablation program, our results suggest that CB significantly shortens procedure while fluoroscopy time and clinical outcomes are comparable to RF ablation. Elsevier 2020-09-30 /pmc/articles/PMC7691769/ /pubmed/33007406 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ipej.2020.09.003 Text en © 2020 Indian Heart Rhythm Society. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Original Article
Velagic, Vedran
Prepolec, Ivan
Pasara, Vedran
Puljevic, Mislav
Puljevic, Davor
Planinc, Ivo
Samardzic, Jure
Milicic, Davor
Learning curves in atrial fibrillation ablation – A comparison between second generation cryoballoon and contact force sensing radiofrequency catheters
title Learning curves in atrial fibrillation ablation – A comparison between second generation cryoballoon and contact force sensing radiofrequency catheters
title_full Learning curves in atrial fibrillation ablation – A comparison between second generation cryoballoon and contact force sensing radiofrequency catheters
title_fullStr Learning curves in atrial fibrillation ablation – A comparison between second generation cryoballoon and contact force sensing radiofrequency catheters
title_full_unstemmed Learning curves in atrial fibrillation ablation – A comparison between second generation cryoballoon and contact force sensing radiofrequency catheters
title_short Learning curves in atrial fibrillation ablation – A comparison between second generation cryoballoon and contact force sensing radiofrequency catheters
title_sort learning curves in atrial fibrillation ablation – a comparison between second generation cryoballoon and contact force sensing radiofrequency catheters
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7691769/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33007406
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ipej.2020.09.003
work_keys_str_mv AT velagicvedran learningcurvesinatrialfibrillationablationacomparisonbetweensecondgenerationcryoballoonandcontactforcesensingradiofrequencycatheters
AT prepolecivan learningcurvesinatrialfibrillationablationacomparisonbetweensecondgenerationcryoballoonandcontactforcesensingradiofrequencycatheters
AT pasaravedran learningcurvesinatrialfibrillationablationacomparisonbetweensecondgenerationcryoballoonandcontactforcesensingradiofrequencycatheters
AT puljevicmislav learningcurvesinatrialfibrillationablationacomparisonbetweensecondgenerationcryoballoonandcontactforcesensingradiofrequencycatheters
AT puljevicdavor learningcurvesinatrialfibrillationablationacomparisonbetweensecondgenerationcryoballoonandcontactforcesensingradiofrequencycatheters
AT planincivo learningcurvesinatrialfibrillationablationacomparisonbetweensecondgenerationcryoballoonandcontactforcesensingradiofrequencycatheters
AT samardzicjure learningcurvesinatrialfibrillationablationacomparisonbetweensecondgenerationcryoballoonandcontactforcesensingradiofrequencycatheters
AT milicicdavor learningcurvesinatrialfibrillationablationacomparisonbetweensecondgenerationcryoballoonandcontactforcesensingradiofrequencycatheters