Cargando…

Technical and procedural comparison of two different cryoballoon ablation systems in patients with atrial fibrillation

PURPOSE: The aim was to report procedural and technical differences of a novel cryoballoon (NCB) ablation catheter for pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) compared to the standard cryoballoon (SCB) catheter. METHODS: Consecutive patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) undergoing PVI using the NCB and the...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Knecht, Sven, Sticherling, Christian, Roten, Laurent, Badertscher, Patrick, Chollet, Laurève, Küffer, Thomas, Spies, Florian, Madaffari, Antonio, Mühl, Aline, Baldinger, Samuel H., Servatius, Helge, Osswald, Stefan, Reichlin, Tobias, Kühne, Michael
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer US 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9399022/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34319493
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10840-021-01035-6
_version_ 1784772430114324480
author Knecht, Sven
Sticherling, Christian
Roten, Laurent
Badertscher, Patrick
Chollet, Laurève
Küffer, Thomas
Spies, Florian
Madaffari, Antonio
Mühl, Aline
Baldinger, Samuel H.
Servatius, Helge
Osswald, Stefan
Reichlin, Tobias
Kühne, Michael
author_facet Knecht, Sven
Sticherling, Christian
Roten, Laurent
Badertscher, Patrick
Chollet, Laurève
Küffer, Thomas
Spies, Florian
Madaffari, Antonio
Mühl, Aline
Baldinger, Samuel H.
Servatius, Helge
Osswald, Stefan
Reichlin, Tobias
Kühne, Michael
author_sort Knecht, Sven
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: The aim was to report procedural and technical differences of a novel cryoballoon (NCB) ablation catheter for pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) compared to the standard cryoballoon (SCB) catheter. METHODS: Consecutive patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) undergoing PVI using the NCB and the SCB were included. Procedural parameters, technical differences, acute efficacy, and safety are reported. RESULTS: Eighty patients (age 66 ± 10 years, ejection fraction 57 ± 10%, left atrial volume index 40 ± 6 ml/m(2)) were studied. With the NCB, 156 of 158 PVs (99%) were isolated compared to isolation of 159 of 159 PVs (100%) with the SCB. The median number of freezes in the NCB and the SCB group was 6 (IQR 5–8) and 5 (IQR 4–7), respectively (p = 0.051), with 73% and 71% of the PVs isolated with a single freeze, respectively. Nadir temperature and temperature at isolation were − 59 ± 6 °C and − 45 ± 17 °C in the NCB group and − 46 ± 7 °C and − 32 ± 23 °C in the SCB group, respectively (both p < 0.001) with no difference in time to isolation (TTI). Procedural differences were observed for the total procedure time (84 ± 29 min in the NCB group and 65 ± 17 min in the SCB group, p = 0.003). There was a peri-procedural stroke in one patient in the NCB group. Differences in catheter design were observed that may account for the differences in temperature recordings and ice cap formation. CONCLUSIONS: Acute efficacy and TTI were similar with the NCB compared to the SCB. Measured temperatures were lower with the NCB, most likely due to differences in catheter design. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10840-021-01035-6.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9399022
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Springer US
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-93990222022-08-25 Technical and procedural comparison of two different cryoballoon ablation systems in patients with atrial fibrillation Knecht, Sven Sticherling, Christian Roten, Laurent Badertscher, Patrick Chollet, Laurève Küffer, Thomas Spies, Florian Madaffari, Antonio Mühl, Aline Baldinger, Samuel H. Servatius, Helge Osswald, Stefan Reichlin, Tobias Kühne, Michael J Interv Card Electrophysiol Article PURPOSE: The aim was to report procedural and technical differences of a novel cryoballoon (NCB) ablation catheter for pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) compared to the standard cryoballoon (SCB) catheter. METHODS: Consecutive patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) undergoing PVI using the NCB and the SCB were included. Procedural parameters, technical differences, acute efficacy, and safety are reported. RESULTS: Eighty patients (age 66 ± 10 years, ejection fraction 57 ± 10%, left atrial volume index 40 ± 6 ml/m(2)) were studied. With the NCB, 156 of 158 PVs (99%) were isolated compared to isolation of 159 of 159 PVs (100%) with the SCB. The median number of freezes in the NCB and the SCB group was 6 (IQR 5–8) and 5 (IQR 4–7), respectively (p = 0.051), with 73% and 71% of the PVs isolated with a single freeze, respectively. Nadir temperature and temperature at isolation were − 59 ± 6 °C and − 45 ± 17 °C in the NCB group and − 46 ± 7 °C and − 32 ± 23 °C in the SCB group, respectively (both p < 0.001) with no difference in time to isolation (TTI). Procedural differences were observed for the total procedure time (84 ± 29 min in the NCB group and 65 ± 17 min in the SCB group, p = 0.003). There was a peri-procedural stroke in one patient in the NCB group. Differences in catheter design were observed that may account for the differences in temperature recordings and ice cap formation. CONCLUSIONS: Acute efficacy and TTI were similar with the NCB compared to the SCB. Measured temperatures were lower with the NCB, most likely due to differences in catheter design. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10840-021-01035-6. Springer US 2021-07-28 2022 /pmc/articles/PMC9399022/ /pubmed/34319493 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10840-021-01035-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Article
Knecht, Sven
Sticherling, Christian
Roten, Laurent
Badertscher, Patrick
Chollet, Laurève
Küffer, Thomas
Spies, Florian
Madaffari, Antonio
Mühl, Aline
Baldinger, Samuel H.
Servatius, Helge
Osswald, Stefan
Reichlin, Tobias
Kühne, Michael
Technical and procedural comparison of two different cryoballoon ablation systems in patients with atrial fibrillation
title Technical and procedural comparison of two different cryoballoon ablation systems in patients with atrial fibrillation
title_full Technical and procedural comparison of two different cryoballoon ablation systems in patients with atrial fibrillation
title_fullStr Technical and procedural comparison of two different cryoballoon ablation systems in patients with atrial fibrillation
title_full_unstemmed Technical and procedural comparison of two different cryoballoon ablation systems in patients with atrial fibrillation
title_short Technical and procedural comparison of two different cryoballoon ablation systems in patients with atrial fibrillation
title_sort technical and procedural comparison of two different cryoballoon ablation systems in patients with atrial fibrillation
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9399022/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34319493
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10840-021-01035-6
work_keys_str_mv AT knechtsven technicalandproceduralcomparisonoftwodifferentcryoballoonablationsystemsinpatientswithatrialfibrillation
AT sticherlingchristian technicalandproceduralcomparisonoftwodifferentcryoballoonablationsystemsinpatientswithatrialfibrillation
AT rotenlaurent technicalandproceduralcomparisonoftwodifferentcryoballoonablationsystemsinpatientswithatrialfibrillation
AT badertscherpatrick technicalandproceduralcomparisonoftwodifferentcryoballoonablationsystemsinpatientswithatrialfibrillation
AT cholletlaureve technicalandproceduralcomparisonoftwodifferentcryoballoonablationsystemsinpatientswithatrialfibrillation
AT kufferthomas technicalandproceduralcomparisonoftwodifferentcryoballoonablationsystemsinpatientswithatrialfibrillation
AT spiesflorian technicalandproceduralcomparisonoftwodifferentcryoballoonablationsystemsinpatientswithatrialfibrillation
AT madaffariantonio technicalandproceduralcomparisonoftwodifferentcryoballoonablationsystemsinpatientswithatrialfibrillation
AT muhlaline technicalandproceduralcomparisonoftwodifferentcryoballoonablationsystemsinpatientswithatrialfibrillation
AT baldingersamuelh technicalandproceduralcomparisonoftwodifferentcryoballoonablationsystemsinpatientswithatrialfibrillation
AT servatiushelge technicalandproceduralcomparisonoftwodifferentcryoballoonablationsystemsinpatientswithatrialfibrillation
AT osswaldstefan technicalandproceduralcomparisonoftwodifferentcryoballoonablationsystemsinpatientswithatrialfibrillation
AT reichlintobias technicalandproceduralcomparisonoftwodifferentcryoballoonablationsystemsinpatientswithatrialfibrillation
AT kuhnemichael technicalandproceduralcomparisonoftwodifferentcryoballoonablationsystemsinpatientswithatrialfibrillation