Dataset Information

Efficacy and safety of cryoballoon pulmonary vein isolation for paroxysmal and persistent atrial fibrillation: A comparison with radiofrequency ablation.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Cryoballoon ablation was established as an effective and safe modality to achieve pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) in paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF). However, its role in persistent atrial fibrillation (PersAF) remains unclear.

Objective

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of cryoballoon PVI in PAF and PersAF comparing conventional radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA).

Methods

Two hundred patients undergoing cryoballoon ablation for symptomatic AF were consecutively enrolled in this retrospective study. For comparison, 210 patients undergoing RFCA in the same period were included. The primary outcome was a recurrence of any atrial tachyarrhythmias (ATas) after the index ablation. 12-lead ECG and 24-hour Holter monitoring were obtained at 1,3,6 and 9-12 months.

Results

PVI by cryoablation alone was achieved in 197 patients (98.5%). ATas-free survival at 12 months post-ablation was 72.7% in the cryoablation and 80.6% in the RFCA group (P = 0.123), respectively. The cryoablation showed comparable efficacy maintaining sinus rhythm compared with RFCA in PAF (P = 0.539), whereas in PersAF, ATas-free survival was significantly lower in cryoablation (P = 0.039). PV reconnection was observed in the majority of patients (14/16, 87.5%) who receive redo RFCA. Complications were encountered in 10 patients, including femoral arteriovenous fistula (n = 1), transient phrenic nerve palsy (n = 8), and minimal amount pericardial effusion (n = 1).

Conclusion

The efficacy of cryoballoon PVI is comparable with conventional RFCA in PAF, whereas PVI alone using cryoballoon may not be insufficient to maintaining sinus rhythm in PersAF. The safety of cryoballlon PVI is tolerable.

SUBMITTER: Choi JH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9328506 | 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:Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most prevalent cardiac arrhythmia (Calkins H, et al. 2012). There are various methods to treat AF of which Ablation is one of the most effective. We aimed to assess the cost-utility of Cryoballoon ablation (CBA) compared to Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) to treat patients with paroxysmal AF in Iran. A cost-utility analysis was done using a decision-analytic model based on a lifetime Markov structure which was drawn considering the nature of interventions and the natural progress of the disease. Costs data were extracted from medical records of 47 patients of Shahid Rajaie Cardiovascular Medical Center in Tehran in 2019. Parameters and variables such as transition probabilities, risks related to side effects, mortality rates, and utility values were extracted from the available evidence. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis was also done. TreeAge pro-2020 software was used in all stages of analysis. In the base case analysis, the CBA strategy was associated with higher cost and effectiveness than RFA, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $11,223 per Quality-adjusted life year (QALY), which compared to Iran's GDP per capita as Willingness to pay threshold, CBA was not cost-effective. On the other hand, considering twice the GDP per capita as a threshold, CBA was cost-effective. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis confirmed the findings of base case analysis, showed that RFA was cost-effective and the probability of cost-effectiveness was 59%. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that the results of the study have the highest sensitivity to changes in the RFA cost variable. Results of sensitivity analysis showed that the cost-effectiveness results were not robust and are sensitive to changes in variables changes. Primary results showed that CBA compared to RFA is not cost-effective in the treatment of AF considering one GDP per capita. But the sensitivity analysis results showed considerable sensitivity to changes of the ablation costs variable.