Key result
Fourth-generation cryoballoon ablation significantly increased freedom from atrial fibrillation recurrence at 12 months compared to second-generation cryoballoons (93.3% vs 81.3%, P<0.001).
Why the study?
The fourth-generation cryoballoon catheter increased acute real-time recordings of pulmonary vein isolation during AF ablation, but long-term outcome comparisons with the second-generation cryoballoon were needed.
Does the fourth-generation cryoballoon (CB4) ablation catheter improve freedom from AF recurrence compared to the second-generation cryoballoon (CB2) in patients with atrial fibrillation?
Cohort (n=492)
Yes
Does the fourth-generation cryoballoon (CB4) ablation catheter improve freedom from AF recurrence compared to the second-generation cryoballoon (CB2) in patients with atrial fibrillation?
The fourth-generation cryoballoon catheter significantly reduces procedure and fluoroscopy times and improves 12-month freedom from AF recurrence compared to the second-generation catheter.
BACKGROUND: It has been observed that the fourth-generation cryoballoon (CB4) ablation catheter increased the rate of acute real-time recordings of pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) during the ablation for the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF). The aim of this analysis was to compare the long-term outcome results between patients treated with the CB4 and second-generation cryoballoon (CB2). METHODS: In total, 492 patients suffering from AF, underwent PVI ablation with either the CB2 or CB4 catheter within this examination of the 1STOP real-world Italian project and were included in the analysis. Specifically, 246 consecutive patients treated by CB4 were compared to 246 propensity-matched control patients who underwent PVI using CB2. RESULTS: When comparing the patient cohorts treated with CB2 versus CB4, acute success rate (99.6 ± 4.7% vs. 99.7 ± 3.6%, p = .949) and peri-procedural complications (3.7% vs.1.2%, p = .080) were similar in both groups, respectively. However, procedure time (100 vs.75 min, p < .001) and fluoroscopy duration (21 vs.17 min, p < .001) were all significantly lower in the CB4 treated patient cohort. At the 12-month follow-up, the freedom from AF recurrence after a 90-day blanking period was significant higher in the CB4 as compared with the CB2 group (93.3% vs.81.3%, p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: In summary, usage of the CB4 ablation catheter increased the rate of acute PVI recording capability and resulted in a higher rate of long-term PVI success, as demonstrated by the reduced rate of AF recurrence in comparison to the CB2 cohort at the 12-month follow-up period.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Manfrin et al. (2022) conducted a cohort in Atrial fibrillation (n=492). Fourth-generation cryoballoon (CB4) ablation vs. Second-generation cryoballoon (CB2) ablation was evaluated on Freedom from AF recurrence at 12 months after a 90-day blanking period (p=<.001). Fourth-generation cryoballoon ablation significantly increased freedom from atrial fibrillation recurrence at 12 months compared to second-generation cryoballoons (93.3% vs 81.3%, P<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: