Key result
The fourth-generation cryoballoon (CB-Advance PRO) significantly reduced median time to pulmonary vein isolation compared to the second-generation device (33 vs 40 seconds, P<0.01).
Why the study?
The novel fourth-generation cryoballoon (CB-Advance PRO) with a shortened catheter tip was recently introduced, but its feasibility and acute efficacy for PVI required evaluation.
Does the fourth-generation cryoballoon (CB-Advance PRO) improve procedural efficacy compared to the second-generation cryoballoon in patients with symptomatic, drug-refractory atrial fibrillation?
Population
200 consecutive patients undergoing PVI for symptomatic, drug-refractory AF
Comparison
CB-Advance PRO vs CB2
Design
Multicenter consecutive cohort analysis
Authors
Loading...
CB-Advance PRO supports acute PVI feasibility in paroxysmal AF; leaves open durability and outcome comparisons.
Cohort (n=200)
Yes
Does the fourth-generation cryoballoon (CB-Advance PRO) improve procedural efficacy compared to the second-generation cryoballoon in patients with symptomatic, drug-refractory atrial fibrillation?
Absolute Event Rate: 33% vs 40%
p-value: p=<.01
The fourth-generation cryoballoon is feasible and significantly reduces time to pulmonary vein isolation and total freezing time compared to the second-generation device, without a significant increase in acute complications.
Rottner et al. (2020) conducted a cohort in symptomatic, drug-refractory atrial fibrillation (n=200). Fourth-generation cryoballoon (CB-Advance PRO) vs. Second-generation cryoballoon (CB2) was evaluated on Median time to pulmonary vein isolation (seconds) (p=<.01). The fourth-generation cryoballoon (CB-Advance PRO) significantly reduced median time to pulmonary vein isolation compared to the second-generation device (33 vs 40 seconds, P<0.01).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: