Key result
Cryoballoon and endoscopic ablation prove safe and effective for AF, while radiofrequency balloons require more data.
Balloon-based ablation systems, including cryoballoon and endoscopic ablation systems, offer safe and effective alternatives to traditional radiofrequency catheters for pulmonary vein isolation in atrial fibrillation.
May facilitate simpler pulmonary vein isolation in atrial fibrillation; leaves open need for randomized long-term outcome data.
Ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) is an established treatment option for symptomatic patients refractory to antiarrhythmic medication. In patients with paroxysmal AF, ablation can be offered as first-line therapy when performed in an experienced centre. The accepted cornerstone for all ablation strategies is isolation of the pulmonary veins. However, it is still challenging to achieve contiguous, transmural, permanent lesions using radio-frequency current (RFC) based catheters in conjunction with a three-dimensional mapping system and the learning curve remains long. These limitations have kindled interest in developing and evaluating novel catheter designs that incorporate alternative energy sources. Novel catheters include balloon-based ablation systems, incorporating different energy modalities such as laser (Heartlight(™), CardioFocus, Marlborough, MA, US), RFC (Hot Balloon Catheter, Hayama Arrhythmia Institute, Kanagawa, Japan) and cryo-energy (ArcticFront, Medtronic, Inc., Minneapolis, MN, US). While the cryoballoon (CB) and the radiofrequency hot balloon (RHB) are single-shot devices, the endoscopic ablation system (EAS) allows for point-by-point ablation. The CB and EAS are well established as safe, time-efficient and effective ablation tools. Initial studies using the RHB could also demonstrate promising results. However, more data are required.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Metzner et al. (2015) conducted a review in Atrial fibrillation. Balloon-based ablation systems was evaluated. Balloon-based ablation systems (cryoballoon and endoscopic) are established as safe and effective tools for atrial fibrillation, while radiofrequency hot balloons require more data.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: