MedElevator Войти в исследования
← Поиск публикаций

DOI 10.1007/s10840-023-01549-1

Медицинская библиотека · Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2023

Posterior wall isolation via a multi-electrode radiofrequency balloon catheter: feasibility, technical considerations, endoscopic findings and comparison with cryoballoon technologies.

Del Monte Alvise, Chierchia Gian Battista, Della Rocca Domenico Giovanni, Pannone Luigi, Sorgente Antonio, Bala Gezim, Monaco Cinzia, Mouram Sahar, Capulzini Cremonini Lucio, Audiat Charles, Praet Joke, Ramak Robbert, Overeinder Ingrid, Ströker Erwin, Sieira Juan, La Meir Mark, Brugada Pedro, Sarkozy Andrea, de Asmundis Carlo, Almorad Alexandre

СтатьяПеревод пока не подготовлен

Аннотация

BACKGROUND

Posterior wall (PW) isolation is an important adjunctive ablation target in patients with non-paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF). Traditionally performed with point-by-point radiofrequency (RF) ablation, PW isolation has also been performed with different cryoballoon technologies. We aimed at assessing the feasibility of PW isolation with the novel RF balloon catheter Heliostar™ (Biosense Webster, CA, USA).

METHODS

We prospectively enrolled 32 consecutive patients with persistent AF scheduled for first-time ablation with the Heliostar™ device. Procedural data were compared with those from 96 consecutive persistent AF patients undergoing pulmonary vein (PV) plus PW isolation with a cryoballoon device. The ratio RF balloon/cryoballoon was 1:3 for each operator involved in the study, aiming at avoiding any imbalance related to different experience.

RESULTS

Single-shot PV isolation was documented in a significantly higher number of cases with the RF balloon technology compared to cryoballoon ablation (89.8% vs. 81.0%; p = 0.02, respectively). PW isolation was achieved with a similar number of balloon applications between the two groups (11 ± 4 with the RF balloon versus 11 ± 2 with the cryoballoon; p = 0.16), but in a significantly shorter time among RF balloon patients (228 ± 72 s versus 1274 ± 277 s with cryoballoon; p < 0.001). Primary safety endpoint occurred in none of the RF balloon patients versus 5 (5.2%) patients in the cryoballoon group (p = 0.33). Primary efficacy endpoint was achieved in all (100%) RF balloon patients versus 93 (96.9%) cryoballoon ones (p = 0.57). Oesophageal endoscopy did not show any signs of thermal lesions in RF balloon patients with luminal temperature rise.

CONCLUSIONS

RF balloon-based PW isolation was safe and promoted shorter procedure times compared to similar cryoballoon-based ablation procedures.

Для цитирования: Del Monte Alvise, Chierchia Gian Battista, Della Rocca Domenico Giovanni, Pannone Luigi, Sorgente Antonio, Bala Gezim, Monaco Cinzia, Mouram Sahar, Capulzini Cremonini Lucio, Audiat Charles, Praet Joke, Ramak Robbert, Overeinder Ingrid, Ströker Erwin, Sieira Juan, La Meir Mark, Brugada Pedro, Sarkozy Andrea, de Asmundis Carlo, Almorad Alexandre. Posterior wall isolation via a multi-electrode radiofrequency balloon catheter: feasibility, technical considerations, endoscopic findings and comparison with cryoballoon technologies.. Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing. 2023. DOI: 10.1007/s10840-023-01549-1.

Предметные рубрики MeSH

Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

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.

Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.