Cryoablation for atrioventricular nodal reentrant tachycardia avoids the approximately 1% risk of atrioventricular block requiring permanent pacing associated with radiofrequency ablation.
How does cryoablation compare to radiofrequency ablation in terms of efficacy and safety for the treatment of atrioventricular nodal reentrant tachycardia?
Cryoablation is a safe alternative to RF ablation for AVNRT, particularly for high-risk ablations, as it eliminates the risk of AV block, though it may have slightly lower long-term efficacy.
Slow-pathway ablation is the treatment of choice for atrioventricular nodal reentrant tachycardia (AVNRT). Cryoablation is effective and safe, but its widespread use seems to be limited by a slightly lower long-term clinical efficacy when compared to radiofrequency (RF) ablation. However, the occurrence of atrioventricular block requiring permanent pacing with RF remains clinically relevant (about 1%). This review summarizes current experiences accumulated during the last decade with cryotechnology in terms of acute and long-term results for AVNRT and compares it with those of RF ablation. We describe the advantages of cryo compared to RF ablation. Our data suggest that pursuing procedural endpoint up to slow pathway complete ablation may improve long-term clinical success of cryoablation. We also focus on potential benefit that can be expected by using cryocatheters leading to larger and deeper freeze. For high-risk ablations, cryoenergy should be used systematically.
Sisti et al. (2011) conducted a review in Atrioventricular nodal reentrant tachycardia (AVNRT). Cryoablation vs. Radiofrequency (RF) ablation was evaluated. Cryoablation for atrioventricular nodal reentrant tachycardia avoids the approximately 1% risk of atrioventricular block requiring permanent pacing associated with radiofrequency ablation.