Why the study?
Does cryoablation with an 8-mm-tip catheter safely and effectively treat right-sided accessory pathways in children?
Does cryoablation with an 8-mm-tip catheter safely and effectively treat right-sided accessory pathways in children?
Cryoablation with an 8-mm-tip catheter is safe and acutely effective for right-sided accessory pathways in children, particularly as a first-line therapy, though recurrence rates remain notable.
May support first-line 8-mm cryoablation for pediatric right-sided pathways; leaves open durability confirmation in randomized trials.
BACKGROUND: Cryoablation is increasingly utilized in children because of its safety profile. Recently, larger catheter tips have been more widely used to improve long-term success rates. The aim of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of 8-mm-tip catheters for cryoablation of right-sided accessory pathways (APs) in children. METHODS: Electrophysiological procedures were performed using the EnSite™ system (St. Jude Medical Inc., St. Paul, MN, USA). RESULTS: Between July 2010 and July 2014, 54 patients (mean age: 13.1 ± 3.7 years) underwent cryoablation using an 8-mm-tip catheter. In 18 of 54 (33%) patients where an 8-mm-tip catheter was the first-choice catheter, the success rate was 18 of 18 (100%). There was a history of previous failed attempts or recurrence with radiofrequency ablation and/or 6-mm-tip cryoablation in 36 of 54 (67%) patients. The success rate in these patients was 24 of 36 (67%). No fluoroscopy was used in 34 of 54 procedures. The recurrence rate was six of 42 (14%) during a mean follow-up period of 32 ± 15 months. In one patient, transient atrioventricular block occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Cryoablation with an 8-mm-tip catheter for right-sided APs in children who weigh over 40 kg appears to be safe and acutely effective in cases where conventional ablation methods fail and also as a first choice for ablation procedure. However, the recurrence rate still seems to be high.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tanıdır et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: