Key result
Non-fluoroscopic cryoballoon ablation was not inferior to standard fluoroscopy-guided ablation for freedom from atrial fibrillation at 12 months (67.3% vs 70.9%; p=0.83).
Why the study?
Routine cryoballoon ablation for AF uses fluoroscopy, exposing patients and staff to potentially hazardous ionizing radiation.
Does non-fluoroscopic cryoballoon ablation using 3D mapping and ICE maintain efficacy and reduce radiation exposure compared to standard fluoroscopy-guided ablation in patients with atrial fibrillation?
RCT (n=110)
Does non-fluoroscopic cryoballoon ablation using 3D mapping and ICE maintain efficacy and reduce radiation exposure compared to standard fluoroscopy-guided ablation in patients with atrial fibrillation?
A non-fluoroscopic approach to cryoballoon ablation using 3D mapping and intracardiac echocardiography significantly reduces radiation exposure without compromising procedural efficacy or safety in patients with atrial fibrillation.
No abstract yet. The journal hasn't published one we can show.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kostin et al. (2021) conducted an RCT in Symptomatic paroxysmal and persistent atrial fibrillation (n=110). Cryoballoon ablation without fluoroscopy (using 3D mapping and intracardiac echocardiography) vs. Standard cryoballoon ablation with fluoroscopy was evaluated on Absence of symptomatic and documented atrial fibrillation paroxysms at 12 months (p=0.83). Non-fluoroscopic cryoballoon ablation was not inferior to standard fluoroscopy-guided ablation for freedom from atrial fibrillation at 12 months (67.3% vs 70.9%; p=0.83).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: