Meta-Analysis Comparing Cryoballoon Versus Radiofrequency as First Ablation Procedure for Atrial Fibrillation.
- 作者列表："Fortuni F","Casula M","Sanzo A","Angelini F","Cornara S","Somaschini A","Mugnai G","Rordorf R","De Ferrari GM
:Pulmonary vein isolation is the cornerstone of atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation. Radiofrequency (RF) represents a standard of care for pulmonary vein isolation, whereas cryoballoon (CB) ablation has emerged as a valid alternative. The aim of our meta-analysis was to explore the efficacy and safety of CB compared with RF as first ablation procedure for AF. We searched the literature for studies that investigated this issue. The primary efficacy outcome was AF recurrence. The safety outcomes were: pericardial effusion, cardiac tamponade, phrenic nerve palsy, vascular complications, and major bleedings. Fourteen randomized controlled studies and 34 observational studies were included in the analysis. A total of 7,951 patients underwent CB ablation, whereas 9,641 received RF ablation. Mean follow-up was 14 ± 7 months. Overall, CB reduced the incidence of AF recurrence compared with RF ablation (relative risk [RR] 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.78 to 0.94; p = 0.001), and this result was consistent across different study design and AF type. CB had a significantly higher rate of phrenic nerve palsy, whereas it was related to a lower incidence of pericardial effusion, cardiac tamponade (RR 0.58; 95% CI 0.38 to 0.88; p = 0.011) and vascular complications (RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.48 to 0.77; p <0.001) compared with RF. There was no significant difference in major bleedings between the 2 strategies. CB ablation had a shorter procedural time compared with RF (mean difference -20.76 minutes; p <0.001). In conclusion, considered its efficacy/safety profile and short procedural time, CB ablation represents the preferable option for first AF ablation procedure.
: 肺静脉隔离是房颤 (AF) 消融的基石。射频 (RF) 代表了肺静脉隔离的标准护理，而冷冻球囊 (CB) 消融已成为有效的替代方案。我们荟萃分析的目的是探讨 CB 与 RF 相比作为 AF 首次消融手术的疗效和安全性。我们在文献中检索了调查这一问题的研究。主要疗效结局为房颤复发。安全性结果为: 心包积液、心脏压塞、膈神经麻痹、血管并发症和大出血。14 项随机对照研究和 34 项观察性研究纳入分析。共有 7,951 例患者接受了 CB 消融，而 9,641 例患者接受了 RF 消融。平均随访 14 ± 7 个月。总体而言，与射频消融相比，CB 降低了 AF 复发率 (相对风险 [RR] 0.86; 95% 置信区间 [CI] 0.78 ~ 0.94; p = 0.001), 这一结果在不同的研究设计和 AF 类型中是一致的。CB 的膈神经麻痹发生率明显增高，而心包积液、心包填塞的发生率较低 (RR 0.58; 95% CI 0.38 ~ 0.88; p = 0.011)。和血管并发症 (RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.48 ~ 0.77; p
METHODS:AIMS:Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) using ablation index (AI) incorporates stability, contact force (CF), time, and power. The CLOSE protocol combines AI and ≤6 mm interlesion distance. Safety concerns are raised about surround flow ablation catheters (STSF). To compare safety and effectiveness of an atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation strategy using AI vs. CLOSE protocol using STSF.,METHODS AND RESULTS:First cluster was treated using AI and second cluster using CLOSE. Procedural data, safety, and recurrence of any atrial tachycardia (AT) or AF >30 s were collected prospectively. All Classes 1c and III anti-arrhythmic drugs (AAD) were stopped after the blanking period. In total, all 215 consecutive patients [AI: 121 (paroxysmal: n = 97), CLOSE: n = 94 (paroxysmal: n = 74)] were included. Pulmonary vein isolation was reached in all in similar procedure duration (CLOSE: 107 ± 25 vs. AI: 102 ± 24 min; P = 0.1) and similar radiofrequency time (CLOSE: 36 ± 11 vs. AI: 37 ± 8 min; P = 0.4) but first pass isolation was higher in CLOSE vs. AI [left veins: 90% vs. 80%; P < 0.05 and right veins: 84% vs. 73%; P < 0.05]. Twelve-month off-AAD freedom of AF/AT was higher in CLOSE vs. AI [79% (paroxysmal: 85%) vs. 64% (paroxysmal: 68%); P < 0.05]. Only four patients (2%) without recurrence were on AAD during follow-up. Major complications were similar (CLOSE: 2.1% vs. AI: 2.5%; P = 0.87).,CONCLUSION:The CLOSE protocol is more effective than a PVI approach solely using AI, especially in paroxysmal AF. In this off-AAD study, 79% of patients were free from AF/AT during 12-month follow-up. The STSF catheter appears to be safe using conventional CLOSE targets.
METHODS:OBJECTIVE:To investigate the role of driver mechanism and the effect of electrogram dispersion-guided driver mapping and ablation in atrial fibrillation (AF) at different stages of progression.,METHODS:A total of 256 consecutive patients with AF who had undergone pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) plus driver ablation or conventional ablation were divided into three groups: paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF; group A, n = 51); persistent atrial fibrillation (PsAF; group B, n = 38); and long standing-persistent atrial fibrillation (LS-PsAF; group C, n = 39). PVI was performed with the guidance of the ablation index. The electrogram dispersion was analyzed for driver mapping.,RESULTS:The most prominent driver regions were at roof (28.0%), posterior wall (17.6%), and bottom (21.3%). From patients with PAF to those with PsAF and LS-PsAF: the complexity of extra-pulmonary vein (PV) drivers including distribution, mean number, and area of dispersion region increased (P < .001). Patients who underwent driver ablation vs conventional ablation had higher procedural AF termination rate (76.6% vs 28.1%; P < .001). With AF progression, the termination rate gradually decreased from group A to group C, and the role of PVI in AF termination was also gradually weakened from group A to group C (39.6%, 7.4%, and 4.3%; P < .001) in patients with driver ablation. At the end of the follow-up, the rate of sinus rhythm maintenance was higher in patients with driver ablation than those with conventional ablation (89.1% vs 70.3%; P < .001).,CONCLUSION:The formation of extra-PV drivers provides an important mechanism for AF maintenance with their complexity increasing with AF progression. Electrogram dispersion-guided driver ablation appears to be an efficient adjunctive approach to PVI for AF treatment.
METHODS:PURPOSE:Whether or not pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) plus left atrial posterior wall isolation (PWI) using contact force (CF) sensing improves the ablation outcome for persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) is unclear. This study compared the outcome of PVI plus PWI and additional non-PV trigger ablation for persistent AF with/without CF sensing. METHODS:This retrospective cohort study analyzed 148 propensity score-matched persistent AF patients (median duration of persistent AF, 8 months (interquartile range, 3-24 months); left atrial diameter, 43 ± 7 mm) undergoing PVI plus PWI and ablation of non-PV triggers provoked by high-dose isoproterenol, including 74 with CF-sensing catheters (CF group) and 74 with conventional catheters (non-CF group). PVI plus PWI with no additional ablation but cavotricuspid isthmus ablation was performed without non-PV triggers in 48 CF patients (65%) and 54 non-CF patients (73%) (P = 0.38). In all other patients, we performed additional ablation of provoked non-PV triggers. RESULTS:The Kaplan-Meier estimate of the rate of freedom from atrial tachyarrhythmia recurrence of antiarrhythmic drugs at 12 months after the single procedure was higher in the CF group than in the non-CF group (85 vs. 70%, log-rank P = 0.030). A multivariable analysis revealed that using CF sensing and non-inducibility of AF from a non-PV trigger after PVI and PWI were significantly associated with a reduced rate of atrial tachyarrhythmia recurrence. CONCLUSIONS:Compared with non-CF sensing, PVI plus PWI and additional non-PV trigger ablation using CF-sensing catheters for persistent AF can reduce the rate of atrial tachyarrhythmia recurrence.