Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026
Clinical comparison of cryoballoon ablation and radiofrequency ablation in the treatment of persistent atrial fibrillation.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Luan Jiaxin, Zhang Xinyu, Meng Zixuan, She Jianqing, Shi Rui, Zhao Yixin, Fan Lihong, Liu Yang, Wu Yue, Li Hongbing
Аннотация
AIMS: To analyze and compare the efficacy and safety of cryoballoon catheter ablation (CBA) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in the first treatment of patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (PerAF).
METHODS: 116 patients with PerAF who underwent the first-time catheter ablation were enrolled retrospectively, including 56 patients in CBA group and 60 patients in RFA group. The primary endpoint was symptomatic onset after 3 months of ablation or occurrence of atrial arrhythmia (ATA) with any documented duration more than 30 s. The secondary endpoints were perioperative complications and re-ablation 3 month after procedure.
RESULTS: No remarkable difference existed between CBA group and RFA group in the recurrence rate one year after operation (CBA 16.1% vs. RFA 23.3%, P = 0.360). Additionally, the complication rates were similar between the two groups (CBA 25.0% vs. RFA 35.0%, P = 0.312).
CONCLUSION: In this real-world study, the effectiveness and overall safety of CBA and RFA in the treatment of PerAF were comparable.
METHODS: 116 patients with PerAF who underwent the first-time catheter ablation were enrolled retrospectively, including 56 patients in CBA group and 60 patients in RFA group. The primary endpoint was symptomatic onset after 3 months of ablation or occurrence of atrial arrhythmia (ATA) with any documented duration more than 30 s. The secondary endpoints were perioperative complications and re-ablation 3 month after procedure.
RESULTS: No remarkable difference existed between CBA group and RFA group in the recurrence rate one year after operation (CBA 16.1% vs. RFA 23.3%, P = 0.360). Additionally, the complication rates were similar between the two groups (CBA 25.0% vs. RFA 35.0%, P = 0.312).
CONCLUSION: In this real-world study, the effectiveness and overall safety of CBA and RFA in the treatment of PerAF were comparable.