Key result
Cryoablation was preferentially performed in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation compared to radiofrequency ablation, which was more evenly distributed between paroxysmal and persistent atrial fibrillation.
Why the study?
Does cryoballoon ablation improve freedom from atrial fibrillation recurrence compared to radiofrequency ablation in patients with paroxysmal or persistent atrial fibrillation?
Cohort (n=1,882)
Yes
Does cryoballoon ablation improve freedom from atrial fibrillation recurrence compared to radiofrequency ablation in patients with paroxysmal or persistent atrial fibrillation?
The FREEZE cohort study will provide large-scale, real-world data comparing the long-term efficacy and safety of cryoballoon versus radiofrequency ablation for pulmonary vein isolation in patients with atrial fibrillation.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Preferential cryoablation in paroxysmal AF indicates selection bias; leaves open adjusted efficacy comparisons in this observational cohort.
Aims: The FREEZE-cohort study (NCT 01360008) is a prospective observational, multicenter and multinational study to evaluate safety and effectiveness of cryoballoon ablation for pulmonary vein isolation as compared to radiofrequency ablation in patients with paroxysmal or persistent atrial fibrillation (lasting < one year) under the conditions of clinical routine. Methods and Results: The study started in 2011 and anticipates inclusion up to 2000 patients in each of the two treatment groups. A total of 37 centers from 8 countries worldwide, all experienced in at least one of the two ablation techniques, participate in the study. The primary outcome parameter of the study is defined as atrial fibrillation recurrence rate during twelve months of follow-up. Secondary outcome parameters include primary success rates, complication rates in general, specific complications with respect to phrenic nerve palsy and pulmonary vein stenosis, radiation exposure, clinical course including death and repeat ablation. Finally specific procedural aspects will be evaluated in a descriptive manner. Preliminary data of the first 1882 patients show that in clinical practice cryoablation is preferentially performed in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, whereas application of radiofrequency ablation is equally distributed between patients with persistent and paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. Conclusion: Based on multi-center and multi-national data the FREEZE-cohort study will provide important information on long-term efficacy, clinical effectiveness, complication rates and procedural differences between atrial fibrillation patients treated with either cryoablation or radiofrequency ablation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hoffmann et al. (2014) conducted a cohort in Atrial Fibrillation (n=1,882). Cryoballoon ablation vs. Radiofrequency ablation was evaluated on Freedom from atrial fibrillation recurrences lasting ≥30 seconds during 12 months of follow-up. Cryoablation was preferentially performed in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation compared to radiofrequency ablation, which was more evenly distributed between paroxysmal and persistent atrial fibrillation.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: