Key result
POLARx cryoballoon achieves complete left atrial roof block with 0% rapid RVP need versus AFA-Pro.
Why the study?
The effectiveness of cryoballoon ablation of the left atrial roof in addition to pulmonary vein isolation using the novel POLARx cryoballoon catheter remains unclear.
Does the POLARx cryoballoon improve procedural efficacy and parameters compared to the AFA-Pro cryoballoon for left atrial roof line ablation in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation?
Cohort (n=100)
Does the POLARx cryoballoon improve procedural efficacy and parameters compared to the AFA-Pro cryoballoon for left atrial roof line ablation in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation?
The POLARx cryoballoon achieves lower nadir temperatures and faster cooling than AFA-Pro, facilitating complete left atrial roof line block without the need for rapid right ventricular pacing.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May facilitate roof line ablation without RV pacing in persistent AF; leaves open randomized confirmation of clinical benefit.
BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of cryoballoon ablation (CBA) of the left atrial (LA) roof in addition to pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) using a novel cryoballoon catheter, POLARx, remains unclear. METHODS: This study compared the efficacy of LA roof line ablation and PVI using POLARx (Boston Scientific) or AFA-Pro (Medtronic) in 100 patients with persistent atrial fibrillation. The right superior pulmonary vein (PV) anchoring and raise-up techniques were consistently used for LA roof line ablation, and rapid right ventricular pacing was applied if the cryoballoon temperature did not reach -40°C. RESULTS: Complete conduction block at the LA roof could be obtained in all patients with POLARx and in 98.0% of patients with AFA-Pro. Rapid right ventricular pacing was needed in 64.0% of patients with AFA-Pro and in no patients with POLARx. During LA roof line ablation, the nadir cryoballoon temperature was significantly lower with POLARx than with AFA-Pro (right: -54.2°C ± 4.4°C vs. -46.0°C ± 5.4°C; central: -56.8°C ± 4.4°C vs. -45.7°C ± 4.8°C; left: -56.1°C ± 4.3°C vs. -46.1°C ± 5.7°C), and the cryoballoon temperature reached -40°C earlier with POLARx than with AFA-Pro (right: 30.8 ± 7.4 s vs. 74.1 ± 37.7 s; central: 28.2 ± 5.2 s vs. 62.9 ± 30.9 s; left: 29.8 ± 5.8 s vs. 69.6 ± 40.7 s). CONCLUSION: The nadir cryoballoon temperature with POLARx was approximately 10°C lower than with AFA-Pro, consistently dropping below -40°C during LA roof line CBA. Thus, a complete conduction block of the LA roof line can be easily accomplished using right superior PV anchoring and the raise-up techniques without the need for rapid right ventricular pacing with POLARx.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shigeta et al. (2024) conducted a cohort in persistent atrial fibrillation (n=100). POLARx cryoballoon vs. AFA-Pro cryoballoon was evaluated on Complete conduction block at the left atrial roof. The POLARx cryoballoon achieved complete conduction block at the left atrial roof in 100% of patients compared to 98.0% with AFA-Pro, without needing rapid right ventricular pacing (0% vs 64.0%).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: