Early arrhythmia recurrence after cryoballoon ablation in atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta‐analysis

Author(s):  
Dimitrios A. Vrachatis ◽  
Konstantinos A. Papathanasiou ◽  
Charalampos Kossyvakis ◽  
Dimitrios Kazantzis ◽  
Sotiria G. Giotaki ◽  
...  
2018 ◽  
Vol 71 (11) ◽  
pp. A524
Author(s):  
Nirav Patel ◽  
Abhishek Shenoy ◽  
William Baker ◽  
Amgad Makaryus ◽  
Nabil El-Sherif

Circulation ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 142 (Suppl_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Awa Drame ◽  
Daniel Rodriguez ◽  
Nicholas Kotch ◽  
Dennis Cassidy ◽  
David Wilson ◽  
...  

Introduction: Catheter ablation has become the cornerstone for the treatment of drug-refractory paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. Two main forms of energy are used: cryoablation (CB) and radiofrequency (RF). Multiple studies have compared the effectiveness/safety curve between these two; among which is the FIRE AND ICE and the FREEZE AF trials which showed non-inferiority between these two technologies. Despite the remarkable success achieved at controlling arrythmias, complications as high as 16.3% have been reported in both technologies. Objectives: The main purpose of this meta-analysis is to compare the incidence of esophageal and myocardial injuries among patients undergoing radiofrequency ablation vs cryoablation for the treatment of atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter (AF). Methods/Results: We searched Pubmed/Embase, Medline and Cochrane from inception to April 2020 for studies that met our predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. All studies comparing RFA to CBA and reporting the incidence of life-threatening complications (esophageal injuries and perforation/tamponade) were included in our analysis. To limit confounding variables and significant heterogeneity between studies, we selected only randomized-control trials and propensity-matched observational studies. A total of 2748 patients were identified. Overall analyses show that RFA has significantly higher life-threatening complications than CBA (OR = 2.79, 95% CI: 1.41-5.52; p=0.003). Conclusion: The present systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrates that RFA has 3 times more life-threatening complications than CBA. As previous studies have already shown similar degree of freedom from AF between these two ablation technologies, CBA appears to be more advantageous overall.


2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xinyi Peng ◽  
Xiao Liu ◽  
Hongbo Tian ◽  
Yu Chen ◽  
Xuexun Li

Background: Balloon-based catheter ablations, including hot balloon ablation (HBA) and cryoballoon ablation (CBA), have rapidly emerged as alternative modalities to conventional catheter atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation owing to their impressive procedural advantages and better clinical outcomes and safety. However, the differences in characteristics, effectiveness, safety, and efficacy between HBA and CBA remain undetermined. This study compares the characteristic and prognosis differences between HBA and CBA.Methods: Electronic search was conducted in six databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, ClinicalTrial.gov, and medRxiv) with specific search strategies. Eligible studies were selected based on specific criteria; all records were identified up to June 1, 2021. The mean difference, odds ratios (ORs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to evaluate the clinical outcomes. Heterogeneity and risk of bias were assessed using predefined criteria.Results: Seven studies were included in the final meta-analysis. Compared with CBA, more patients in the HBA group had residual conduction and required a higher incidence of touch-up ablation (TUA) [OR (95% CI) = 2.76 (2.02–3.77), P = 0.000]. The most frequent sites of TUA were the left superior pulmonary veins (PVs) in the HBA group vs. the right inferior PVs in the CBA group. During HBA surgery, the left and right superior PVs were more likely to have a higher fluid injection volume. Furthermore, the procedure time was longer in the HBA group than in the CBA group [weighted mean difference (95% CI) = 14.24 (4.39–24.09), P = 0.005]. Patients in the CBA group could have an increased risk of AF occurrence, and accepted more antiarrhythmic drug therapy; however, the result was insignificant.Conclusions: HBA and CBA are practical ablation approaches for AF treatment. Patients who received HBA had a higher incidence of TUA and longer procedure time. Clinical outcomes during the mid-term follow-up between HBA and CBA were comparable.Systematic Review Registration:https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=259487, identifier: CRD42021259487.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document