Key result
Cryoballoon PVI was not significantly different from standard CTI ablation for preventing recurrence of sustained symptomatic atrial arrhythmia at 12 months (18.6% vs 16.7%; HR 1.11, 95% CI 0.46-2.67).
Why the study?
The authors aimed to compare cryoballoon pulmonary vein isolation with standard radiofrequency cavotricuspid isthmus ablation as first-line treatment for typical atrial flutter.
Does cryoballoon PVI reduce the recurrence of sustained symptomatic atrial arrhythmia compared to standard radiofrequency CTI ablation in patients with typical atrial flutter?
RCT (n=113)
Open-label with blinded assessment
Randomized
Yes
Does cryoballoon PVI reduce the recurrence of sustained symptomatic atrial arrhythmia compared to standard radiofrequency CTI ablation in patients with typical atrial flutter?
Hazard Ratio: 1.11 (95% CI 0.46–2.67)
Absolute Event Rate: 18.6% vs 16.7%
Cryoballoon PVI is equally effective as standard CTI ablation for preventing recurrence of atrial arrhythmia in typical atrial flutter, and significantly reduces new-onset AF.
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to compare cryoballoon pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) with standard radiofrequency cavotricuspid isthmus (CTI) ablation as first-line treatment for typical atrial flutter (AFL). METHODS: Cryoballoon Pulmonary Vein Isolation as First-Line Treatment for Typical Atrial Flutter was an international, multicentre, open with blinded assessment trial. Patients with CTI-dependent AFL and no documented atrial fibrillation (AF) were randomised to either cryoballoon PVI alone or radiofrequency CTI ablation. Primary efficacy outcome was time to first recurrence of sustained (>30 s) symptomatic atrial arrhythmia (AF/AFL/atrial tachycardia) at 12 months as assessed by continuous monitoring with an implantable loop recorder. Primary safety outcome was a composite of death, stroke, tamponade requiring drainage, atrio-oesophageal fistula, pacemaker implantation, serious vascular complications or persistent phrenic nerve palsy. RESULTS: Trial recruitment was halted at 113 of the target 130 patients because of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic (PVI, n=59; CTI ablation, n=54). Median age was 66 (IQR 61-71) years, with 98 (86.7%) men. At 12 months, the primary outcome occurred in 11 (18.6%) patients in the PVI group and 9 (16.7%) patients in the CTI group. There was no significant difference in the primary efficacy outcome between the groups (HR 1.11, 95% CI 0.46 to 2.67). AFL recurred in six (10.2%) patients in the PVI arm and one (1.9%) patient in the CTI arm (p=0.116). Time to occurrence of AF of ≥2 min was significantly reduced with cryoballoon PVI (HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.85). The composite safety outcome occurred in four patients in the PVI arm and three patients in the CTI arm (p=1.000). CONCLUSION: Cryoballoon PVI as first-line treatment for AFL is equally effective compared with standard CTI ablation for preventing recurrence of atrial arrhythmia and better at preventing new-onset AF. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03401099.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gupta et al. (2022) conducted an RCT in Typical atrial flutter (AFL) (n=113). Cryoballoon pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) vs. Radiofrequency cavotricuspid isthmus (CTI) ablation was evaluated on Time to first recurrence of sustained (>30 s) symptomatic atrial arrhythmia (AF/AFL/atrial tachycardia) at 12 months (HR 1.11, 95% CI 0.46 to 2.67). Cryoballoon PVI was not significantly different from standard CTI ablation for preventing recurrence of sustained symptomatic atrial arrhythmia at 12 months (18.6% vs 16.7%; HR 1.11, 95% CI 0.46-2.67).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: