Key result
Cryoballoon ablation shows similar pericardial effusion risk versus RF ablation in paroxysmal AF.
Why the study?
Pericardial effusion is a frequent complication during atrial fibrillation ablation, but its incidence and outcome comparing cryoballoon and radiofrequency pulmonary vein isolation were unclear.
Does cryoballoon ablation compared to radiofrequency ablation alter the incidence of pericardial effusion in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation?
Cohort (n=133)
No
Does cryoballoon ablation compared to radiofrequency ablation alter the incidence of pericardial effusion in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation?
Absolute Event Rate: 11% vs 16%
p-value: p=not significant
Cryoballoon and radiofrequency ablation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation have similar rates of pericardial effusion, which is mostly mild and asymptomatic.
AIMS: Atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation is increasingly being performed in electrophysiology laboratories. Pericardial effusion (PE) is certainly one of the most frequently observed complications during AF ablation. The aim of our study was to investigate the incidence and outcome of PE following cryothermal energy balloon ablation (CBA) in comparison with conventional circumferential pulmonary vein isolation with a focal radiofrequency (RF) catheter. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 133 consecutive patients (105 males) with paroxysmal AF were included in this study. Forty-six patients (36 males) underwent CBA (Arctic Front, Medtronic, USA) and 87 (69 males) point-by-point RF ablation guided by electroanatomical mapping (Carto, Biosense Webster, Diamond Bar, CA, USA). Ablation was performed under general anaesthesia with both techniques. All patients underwent a 2D transthoracic echocardiogram within 24 h before and after the procedure as routinely performed in our centre. Pericardial effusion was detected in 19 (14.2%) of 133 patients. Sixteen patients presented mild effusion, one moderate effusion, and two pericardial tamponades. There was no significant difference in the incidence of PE between the cryoballoon and the RF group (11 vs. 16%). A longer procedural time, coronary artery disease, and arterial hypertension were found to be independent predictors of PE during AF ablation. CONCLUSION: Pericardial effusion occurred in a similar proportion following CBA and RF ablation for AF. Pericardial effusion was mostly mild and asymptomatic, with benign clinical outcome not requiring additional hospitalization days.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chierchia et al. (2010) conducted a cohort in Paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (n=133). Cryothermal energy balloon ablation (CBA) vs. Point-by-point radiofrequency (RF) ablation was evaluated on Incidence of pericardial effusion (p=not significant). Cryothermal energy balloon ablation resulted in a similar incidence of pericardial effusion compared to radiofrequency ablation (11% vs. 16%) in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: