Cargando…

Comparison of effectiveness and safety of high-power vs. conventional-power radiofrequency ablation for treatment of atrial fibrillation

AIM: To compare high-power (HP) vs. conventional-power (CP) radiofrequency ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS: We retrospectively enrolled AF patients undergoing CP (30–40 W, 43 patients) or HP (50 W, 49 patients) radiofrequency ablation. Immediate pulmonary vein (PV) single-circle isola...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Cui, Penghui, Qu, Yunpeng, Zhang, Jichang, Wu, Junduo, Zhang, Jing, Shi, Yongfeng, Liu, Bin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9763616/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36561771
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2022.988602
_version_ 1784853099448369152
author Cui, Penghui
Qu, Yunpeng
Zhang, Jichang
Wu, Junduo
Zhang, Jing
Shi, Yongfeng
Liu, Bin
author_facet Cui, Penghui
Qu, Yunpeng
Zhang, Jichang
Wu, Junduo
Zhang, Jing
Shi, Yongfeng
Liu, Bin
author_sort Cui, Penghui
collection PubMed
description AIM: To compare high-power (HP) vs. conventional-power (CP) radiofrequency ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS: We retrospectively enrolled AF patients undergoing CP (30–40 W, 43 patients) or HP (50 W, 49 patients) radiofrequency ablation. Immediate pulmonary vein (PV) single-circle isolation, PV-ablation time, AF recurrence, AF recurrence-free survival, and complications were analyzed. RESULTS: Diabetes was more common in the CP group than in the HP group (27.91% vs. 10.20%, P = 0.029). The left PV single-circle isolation rate (62.79% vs. 65.31%), right PV single-circle isolation rate (48.84% vs. 53.06%), and bilateral PV single-circle isolation rate (32.56% vs. 38.78%; all P > 0.05) did not differ between the groups. Single-circle ablation times for the left PVs (12.79 ± 3.39 vs. 22.94 ± 6.39 min), right PVs (12.18 ± 3.46 vs. 20.67 ± 5.44 min), and all PVs (25.85 ± 6.04 vs. 45.66 ± 11.11 min; all P < 0.001) were shorter in the HP group. Atrial fibrillation recurrence within 3 months (13.95% vs. 18.37%), at 3 months (11.63% vs. 8.16%), and at 6 months after ablation (18.60% vs. 12.24%; all P > 0.05) was similar in both groups. Atrial fibrillation recurrence-free survival did not differ between the groups (Kaplan-Meier analysis). Cardiac rupture and pericardial tamponade did not occur in any patient. Pops occurred in 2 and 0 patients in the HP and CP groups, respectively (4.08% vs. 0.00%, P = 0.533). CONCLUSION: High-power ablation improved operation time and efficiency without increasing complications.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9763616
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-97636162022-12-21 Comparison of effectiveness and safety of high-power vs. conventional-power radiofrequency ablation for treatment of atrial fibrillation Cui, Penghui Qu, Yunpeng Zhang, Jichang Wu, Junduo Zhang, Jing Shi, Yongfeng Liu, Bin Front Cardiovasc Med Cardiovascular Medicine AIM: To compare high-power (HP) vs. conventional-power (CP) radiofrequency ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS: We retrospectively enrolled AF patients undergoing CP (30–40 W, 43 patients) or HP (50 W, 49 patients) radiofrequency ablation. Immediate pulmonary vein (PV) single-circle isolation, PV-ablation time, AF recurrence, AF recurrence-free survival, and complications were analyzed. RESULTS: Diabetes was more common in the CP group than in the HP group (27.91% vs. 10.20%, P = 0.029). The left PV single-circle isolation rate (62.79% vs. 65.31%), right PV single-circle isolation rate (48.84% vs. 53.06%), and bilateral PV single-circle isolation rate (32.56% vs. 38.78%; all P > 0.05) did not differ between the groups. Single-circle ablation times for the left PVs (12.79 ± 3.39 vs. 22.94 ± 6.39 min), right PVs (12.18 ± 3.46 vs. 20.67 ± 5.44 min), and all PVs (25.85 ± 6.04 vs. 45.66 ± 11.11 min; all P < 0.001) were shorter in the HP group. Atrial fibrillation recurrence within 3 months (13.95% vs. 18.37%), at 3 months (11.63% vs. 8.16%), and at 6 months after ablation (18.60% vs. 12.24%; all P > 0.05) was similar in both groups. Atrial fibrillation recurrence-free survival did not differ between the groups (Kaplan-Meier analysis). Cardiac rupture and pericardial tamponade did not occur in any patient. Pops occurred in 2 and 0 patients in the HP and CP groups, respectively (4.08% vs. 0.00%, P = 0.533). CONCLUSION: High-power ablation improved operation time and efficiency without increasing complications. Frontiers Media S.A. 2022-12-06 /pmc/articles/PMC9763616/ /pubmed/36561771 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2022.988602 Text en Copyright © 2022 Cui, Qu, Zhang, Wu, Zhang, Shi and Liu. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Cardiovascular Medicine
Cui, Penghui
Qu, Yunpeng
Zhang, Jichang
Wu, Junduo
Zhang, Jing
Shi, Yongfeng
Liu, Bin
Comparison of effectiveness and safety of high-power vs. conventional-power radiofrequency ablation for treatment of atrial fibrillation
title Comparison of effectiveness and safety of high-power vs. conventional-power radiofrequency ablation for treatment of atrial fibrillation
title_full Comparison of effectiveness and safety of high-power vs. conventional-power radiofrequency ablation for treatment of atrial fibrillation
title_fullStr Comparison of effectiveness and safety of high-power vs. conventional-power radiofrequency ablation for treatment of atrial fibrillation
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of effectiveness and safety of high-power vs. conventional-power radiofrequency ablation for treatment of atrial fibrillation
title_short Comparison of effectiveness and safety of high-power vs. conventional-power radiofrequency ablation for treatment of atrial fibrillation
title_sort comparison of effectiveness and safety of high-power vs. conventional-power radiofrequency ablation for treatment of atrial fibrillation
topic Cardiovascular Medicine
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9763616/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36561771
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2022.988602
work_keys_str_mv AT cuipenghui comparisonofeffectivenessandsafetyofhighpowervsconventionalpowerradiofrequencyablationfortreatmentofatrialfibrillation
AT quyunpeng comparisonofeffectivenessandsafetyofhighpowervsconventionalpowerradiofrequencyablationfortreatmentofatrialfibrillation
AT zhangjichang comparisonofeffectivenessandsafetyofhighpowervsconventionalpowerradiofrequencyablationfortreatmentofatrialfibrillation
AT wujunduo comparisonofeffectivenessandsafetyofhighpowervsconventionalpowerradiofrequencyablationfortreatmentofatrialfibrillation
AT zhangjing comparisonofeffectivenessandsafetyofhighpowervsconventionalpowerradiofrequencyablationfortreatmentofatrialfibrillation
AT shiyongfeng comparisonofeffectivenessandsafetyofhighpowervsconventionalpowerradiofrequencyablationfortreatmentofatrialfibrillation
AT liubin comparisonofeffectivenessandsafetyofhighpowervsconventionalpowerradiofrequencyablationfortreatmentofatrialfibrillation