Dataset Information

Acute safety, efficacy, and advantages of a novel cryoballoon ablation system for pulmonary vein isolation in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: initial clinical experience.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

Cryoballoon pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) is a safe and effective treatment for atrial fibrillation (AF). Current limitations include incomplete vein occlusion due to balloon rigidity and inconsistent electrogram recording, which impairs identification of isolation. We aimed to evaluate the acute safety and performance of a novel cryoballoon system.

Methods and results

The system includes a steerable sheath, mapping catheter, and a balloon that maintains uniform inflation pressure and size following initiation of ablation. Protocol-directed cryoablation was delivered for 180 s for isolation documented in ≤60 s, otherwise freeze duration was 240 s. Primary endpoints were acute safety and vein isolation. Pulmonary vein isolation was confirmed at ≥30 min post-isolation. Data were compared across vein locations. Thirty patients with paroxysmal AF were enrolled at two centres and underwent PVI. Pulmonary vein isolation was achieved with cryoablation only in 100% of veins (120/120). Nadir temperature was -53.1 ± 5.3°C. The number of applications to achieve PVI was 1.4 ± 0.4 per vein. Of the 120 veins, 89 were isolated with a single cryothermal application (10/30 patients required only 4 total cryoablations). There were no procedural- or device-related serious adverse events at 30 days post-procedure. A subset (24/30) of patients was followed for 1-year and 71% (17/24) remained free of atrial arrhythmias. Six patients with arrhythmia recurrence were remapped and three had durable PVI for all four veins.

Conclusion

In this first human experience, the novel cryoballoon platform was safe, efficacious, and demonstrated a high proportion of successful single ablation isolation.

SUBMITTER: Anic A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8350865 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveCurrently radiofrequency and cryoballoon ablations are the two standard ablation systems used for catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation; however, there is no universal consensus on which ablation is the optimal choice. We therefore sought to undertake a meta-analysis with special emphases on comparing the efficacy and safety between cryoballoon and radiofrequency ablations by synthesizing published clinical trials.Methods and resultsArticles were identified by searching the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases before September 2013, by reviewing the bibliographies of eligible reports, and by consulting with experts in this field. Data were extracted independently and in duplicate. There were respectively 469 and 635 patients referred for cryoballoon and radiofrequency ablations from 14 qualified clinical trials. Overall analyses indicated that cryoballoon ablation significantly reduced fluoroscopic time and total procedure time by a weighted mean of 14.13 (95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 2.82 to 25.45; P = 0.014) minutes and 29.65 (95% CI: 8.54 to 50.77; P = 0.006) minutes compared with radiofrequency ablation, respectively, whereas ablation time in cryoballoon ablation was nonsignificantly elongated by a weighted mean of 11.66 (95% CI: -10.71 to 34.04; P = 0.307) minutes. Patients referred for cryoballoon ablation had a high yet nonsignificant success rate of catheter ablation compared with cryoballoon ablation (odds ratio; 95% CI; P: 1.34; 0.53 to 3.36; 0.538), and cryoballoon ablation was also found to be associated with the relatively low risk of having recurrent atrial fibrillation (0.75; 0.3 to 1.88; 0.538) and major complications (0.46; 0.11 to 1.83; 0.269). There was strong evidence of heterogeneity and low probability of publication bias.ConclusionOur findings demonstrate greater improvement in fluoroscopic time and total procedure duration for atrial fibrillation patients referred for cryoballoon ablation than those for radiofrequency ablation.

Project description:IntroductionCryoballoon ablation (CBA) is a standard catheter ablation technology with demonstrated clinical effectiveness for the treatment of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF); however, it can be associated with major adverse events, including phrenic nerve paralysis. Pulsed field ablation (PFA) is a novel, minimally thermal technology with comparable effectiveness and low safety risk. This study aimed to compare the safety profiles of PFA and CBA through critical analyses of the literature and indirect treatment comparisons.MethodsStudies were identified by searching the MEDLINE database and the Clinicaltrials.gov registry. Registered clinical trials and/or Food and Drug Administration Investigation Device Exemption (FDA IDE) studies evaluating PFA or CBA in adult patients with drug-refractory PAF between January 2008 and March 2023 were selected. Comparative safety between PFA and CBA was assessed for major and prespecified adverse events. Indirect comparisons were conducted using the proportion of patients experiencing adverse events and confirmed with single-arm meta-analyses and sensitivity analyses.ResultsData were extracted from three PFA publications including a total of 497 patients and six CBA studies including a total of 1113 patients. The analysis revealed that PFA was associated with significantly lower risk of major adverse events {risk difference - 4.3% [95% confidence interval (CI) - 5.8, - 2.8]; risk ratio 0.16 [95% CI 0.07, 0.45]} and prespecified adverse events [risk difference - 2.5% (95% CI - 4.4, - 0.5); risk ratio 0.53 (95% CI 0.31, 0.96)]. Meta-analyses confirmed the lower rate of major adverse events for PFA [0.4% (95% CI 0.0, 1.3)] vs. CBA [5.6% (95% CI 2.6, 8.6)] and prespecified adverse events for PFA [2.7% (95% CI 1.2, 4.1)] vs. CBA [5.8% (95% CI 2.7, 9.0)]. Sensitivity analyses exploring heterogeneity across studies confirmed robustness of the main analyses.ConclusionThe findings of this study show that PFA has a more favorable safety profile than CBA, with significantly lower risks of major and prespecified adverse events. These indirect comparisons help contextualize the safety of PFA compared to CBA for the treatment of drug-refractory PAF in the absence of head-to-head studies.