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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |