Key result
Focal cryoablation demonstrated a similar acute procedural success rate compared to radiofrequency ablation (90.6% vs 100.0%, p=0.068) for the treatment of atrioventricular nodal reentrant tachycardia.
Why the study?
Cryoablation carries a low risk of total AV block in AVNRT, but an increase in early-late recurrences has been reported compared to RF ablation.
Does focal cryoablation compared with radiofrequency ablation improve procedural success and reduce complications in patients with AVNRT?
Observational (n=73)
No
Does focal cryoablation compared with radiofrequency ablation improve procedural success and reduce complications in patients with AVNRT?
Focal cryoablation is a safe, non-inferior alternative to radiofrequency ablation for AVNRT, offering significantly shorter fluoroscopy times without increasing the risk of permanent AV block.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Shorter fluoroscopy times with cryoablation in AVNRT; leaves open equivalence to radiofrequency for success and safety.
Background The ablation of atrioventricular nodal reentrant tachycardia (AVNRT) with cryoablation is an alternative to radiofrequency (RF) ablation in patients due to the low risk of total atrioventricular block. An increase in early-late recurrences after cryoablation is reported as an important disadvantage. Objectives In this study, we aimed to compare the acute procedural success and the long-term recurrence rates of patients, with AVNRT who underwent methods. Methods 73 patients with AVNRT were included in the study: 32 with cryoablation and 41 with RF ablation. There was no statistically significant difference between acute procedural success in methods. The ablation procedure was performed by an operator experienced in arrhythmology. The choice of RF or cryoablation was made in the electrophysiology laboratory based on the material already available during the procedure. After the procedure, the patients were evaluated every 3 months for 2 years in polyclinic control. The significance level adopted in the statistical analysis was 5%. Results The 2 groups of patients were homogeneous. The fluoroscopy time (p<0.001) was shorter, but atrium-his (p=0.004) and his-ventricular (p=0.015) times were longer in the cryoablation group. There was no significant difference, in terms of acute procedural success, post-procedure jump without a single echo, and presence of echo and jump. Conclusions Cryoablation requires less fluoroscopy time and is a safe non-inferior alternative to RF ablation in patients with AVNRT. The risk of AV block is a significant problem with the use of RF energy, making it less suitable for use in young and physically active patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Topaloğlu et al. (2024) conducted an observational in Atrioventricular nodal reentrant tachycardia (AVNRT) (n=73). Focal cryoablation vs. Radiofrequency ablation was evaluated on Acute procedural success (inability to induce tachycardia or presence of only a single jump/echo at least 20 minutes after ablation) (p=0.068). Focal cryoablation demonstrated a similar acute procedural success rate compared to radiofrequency ablation (90.6% vs 100.0%, p=0.068) for the treatment of atrioventricular nodal reentrant tachycardia.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: