Key result
Second generation cryoballoon ablation resulted in similar 12-month freedom from atrial fibrillation compared to contact force radiofrequency ablation.
Why the study?
Does second-generation cryoballoon ablation improve freedom from atrial fibrillation compared to contact force radiofrequency ablation in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation?
Cohort (n=92)
Yes
Does second-generation cryoballoon ablation improve freedom from atrial fibrillation compared to contact force radiofrequency ablation in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Second-generation cryoballoon and contact force radiofrequency ablation demonstrate similar 12-month efficacy and safety for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, though cryoablation initially requires longer fluoroscopy time.
BACKGROUND: Radiofrequency and cryoballoon pulmonary vein isolation are common approaches for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation treatment, showing similar results in recent multicenter studies, including heterogeneous tools and protocols. The aim of this study is to compare prospectively in a single, high-volume center the outcome of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation ablation performed specifically by second-generation cryoballoon or contact force radiofrequency ablation. METHODS: Consecutive patients scheduled for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation transcatheter ablation have been included and prospectively followed up. Aiming to reduce potential bias deriving from baseline characteristics, a propensity score matching analysis has been performed to analyze safety and efficacy outcomes. RESULTS: Out of consecutive patients undergoing atrial fibrillation transcatheter ablation between January 2015 and December 2016, 46 patients approached by cryoablation were matched 1 : 1 by propensity score to a similar population treated by last-generation radiofrequency ablation. Freedom from atrial fibrillation after 12 months (76 vs. 78%, P = 0.804) and incidence of complications (4 vs. 6%, P = 0.168) did not differ between the two groups. Radiological exposure was higher for the cryoballoon group (11 vs. 4 min, P < 0.001), whereas procedural duration did not differ (P = 0.174). Aiming to assess the potential impact of a learning curve in patients undergoing cryoablation, the first-third of patients (n = 15) were compared with the remaining, reporting longer radiological exposure (P < 0.001), but similar safety and efficacy. CONCLUSION: In this propensity score analysis, last-generation cryoballoon and radiofrequency catheters for atrial fibrillation ablation present similar efficacy and safety. Cryoablation requires longer fluoroscopy exposure compared with radiofrequency, although this is reduced by increased experience.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Matta et al. (2018) conducted a cohort in Paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (n=92). Second generation cryoballoon ablation vs. Contact force radiofrequency ablation was evaluated on Freedom from atrial fibrillation at 12 months (p=0.804). Second generation cryoballoon ablation resulted in similar 12-month freedom from atrial fibrillation compared to contact force radiofrequency ablation.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: