Differences between 2 cryoballoon systems in achieving successful pulmonary vein isolation in patients with challenging anatomies

Figures

• 

  Figure 1. Computed tomography analysis of the RIPV angle measurements. A: Assessment of the RIPV frontal angle: a frontal view showing the angle measurement between the orthogonal axis (green) on the RIPV ostial intersection line (blue) and the horizontal axis (red). B: RIPV transversal angle: a transversal view showing the angle measurement between the orthogonal axis (green) on the RIPV ostial intersection line (blue) and the vertical axis (red). C–E: Assessment of the RIPV ovality from the perpendicular view to the long axis of the RIPV. The crosshair on the RIPV ostium (yellow star) has been rotated to be perpendicular to the ostium of the RIPV in both the coronal and transversal images (C and D) to obtain a perpendicular view of the RIPV ostium (E). The maximum and minimum diameters were measured from this view. Ao = aorta; LA = left atrium; LAA = left atrium appendage; LV = left ventricular; RIPV = right inferior pulmonary vein.

• 

  Figure 2. Distribution of the touch-up radiofrequency applications required in the AFA-Pro and POLAR groups. LSPV = left superior pulmonary vein; RIPV = right inferior pulmonary vein; RSPV = right superior pulmonary vein.

• 

  Figure 3. Association of the anatomical parameters with the comparative effectiveness of the POLAR and AFA-Pro for the RIPV isolation. RIPV = right inferior pulmonary vein.

• 

  Figure 4. Subgroup analysis for the rate of touch-up RFA stratified by RIPV frontal angle. CI = confidence interval; RFA = radiofrequency ablation; RIPV = right inferior pulmonary vein.