Key result
Presence of PFO linked to ~38% lower AF recurrence risk after cryoballoon ablation.
Why the study?
The influence of atrial septal anomalies on post-ablation outcomes, particularly after cryoballoon ablation for atrial fibrillation, was poorly understood.
Does the presence of a patent foramen ovale reduce atrial fibrillation recurrence in patients undergoing cryoballoon ablation?
Cohort (n=657)
No
Does the presence of a patent foramen ovale reduce atrial fibrillation recurrence in patients undergoing cryoballoon ablation?
Hazard Ratio: 0.62 (95% CI 0.43–0.89)
Absolute Event Rate: 25.5% vs 31.8%
p-value: p=0.010
The presence of a patent foramen ovale (PFO) in patients undergoing cryoballoon ablation for atrial fibrillation is independently associated with a lower rate of post-procedural AF recurrence.
PFO presence may inform lower post-ablation recurrence risk; hypothesis-generating and leaves open need for prospective validation before practice change.
Background Atrial septal anomalies such as patent foramen ovale (PFO), atrial septal aneurysm (ASA), and lipomatous hypertrophy of the interatrial septum (LHIS) are frequently identified by transoesophageal echocardiography (TEE) in patients undergoing atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation. While ASAs have been linked to arrhythmogenic potential, their influence on post-ablation outcomes, particularly after cryoballoon ablation (CBA), is poorly understood. Methods In this retrospective single-center cohort study we enrolled all patients who underwent CBA-based pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) for paroxysmal or persistent AF between June 2015 and April 2024 at our center and had preprocedural TEE imaging. Interatrial septal morphology—including PFO, ASA, and LHIS—was assessed. The primary endpoint was AF recurrence, defined as any episode lasting >30 s beyond the 90-day blanking period. Kaplan–Meier analysis and Cox proportional hazards modeling were used for time-to-event analyses. Results Among 657 patients (mean age 61.7 ± 9.6 years; 71.2% male), PFO was identified in 16.6%, LHIS in 5.7%, and ASA in 1.0%. Over a median follow-up of 19 months (IQR: 3–76), AF recurrence occurred in 26.8%. Kaplan–Meier analysis revealed a significantly lower recurrence rate in patients with PFO compared to those without PFO (HR: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.43–0.89; p = 0.010). This association was independent from other clinical, electrophysiological and echocardiographic confounders (HR: 0.56; 95% CI: 0.38–0.83; p = 0.004). Conclusions In this single-center cohort, the presence of PFO was independently associated with a lower risk of AF recurrence following CBA. These findings suggest a potential protective role of PFO and merit further prospective investigation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bonapace et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in Atrial fibrillation undergoing cryoballoon ablation (n=657). Patent foramen ovale (PFO) vs. No patent foramen ovale was evaluated on Atrial fibrillation recurrence (any episode >30 s beyond 90-day blanking period) (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.43-0.89, p=0.010). The presence of a patent foramen ovale was associated with a lower risk of atrial fibrillation recurrence (HR 0.62) following cryoballoon ablation compared to patients without a PFO.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: