Journal of atrial fibrillation · 2021
Procedural Safety and Efficacy for Pulmonary Vein Isolation with the Novel Polarx™ Cryoablation System: A Propensity Score Matched Comparison with the Arctic Front™ Cryoballoon in the Setting of Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Mojica Joerelle, Lipartiti Felicia, Al Housari Maysam, Bala Gezim, Kazawa Shuichiro, Miraglia Vincenzo, Monaco Cinzia, Overeinder Ingrid, Strazdas Antanas, Ramak Robbert, Paparella Gaetano, Sieira Juan, Capulzini Lucio, Sorgente Antonio, Stroker Erwin, Brugada Pedro, De Asmundis Carlo, Chierchia Gian-Battista
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The novel Polarx™ cryoablation system is currently being studied for atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation. To the best of our knowledge, no study comparing the novel cryoablation system with the standard Arctic Front™ cryoballoon is available in today's literature. This study aims to compare Polarx™ and Arctic Front™ cryoballoon in terms of safety and efficacy.
METHODS: From a total cohort of 202 patients who underwent pulmonary vein (PV) isolation for paroxysmal AF through cryoablation, a population of 30 patients who used Polarx™ were compared with 30 propensity-score matched patients who used Arctic Front™.
RESULTS: Pulmonary vein occlusion and electrical isolation were achieved in all (100%) veins with a mean number of 1.09 ± 0.3 occlusion per vein using Polarx™ and 1.19 ± 0.5 occlusion per vein using Arctic Front™ (p = 0.6). Shorter procedure and fluoroscopy time were observed with Polarx™ group (60.5 ± 14.23 vs 73.43 ± 13.26 mins, p = 0.001; 12.83 ± 6.03 vs 17.23 ± 7.17 mins, p = 0.01, respectively). Lower cumulative freeze duration per vein was also observed with Polarx™ (203.38 ± 72.03 vs 224.9 ± 79.35 mins, p = 0.02). There was no significant difference in isolation time between the two groups (34.47 ± 21.23 vs 34.18 ± 26.79 secs, p = 0.9).
CONCLUSIONS: The novel Polarx™ cryoablation system showed similar efficacy in vein occlusion and isolation and safety profile when compared to Arctic Front™ cryoablation system. Procedure time, fluoroscopy time, and cumulative freeze duration were significantly lower with Polarx™ cryoablation system.
METHODS: From a total cohort of 202 patients who underwent pulmonary vein (PV) isolation for paroxysmal AF through cryoablation, a population of 30 patients who used Polarx™ were compared with 30 propensity-score matched patients who used Arctic Front™.
RESULTS: Pulmonary vein occlusion and electrical isolation were achieved in all (100%) veins with a mean number of 1.09 ± 0.3 occlusion per vein using Polarx™ and 1.19 ± 0.5 occlusion per vein using Arctic Front™ (p = 0.6). Shorter procedure and fluoroscopy time were observed with Polarx™ group (60.5 ± 14.23 vs 73.43 ± 13.26 mins, p = 0.001; 12.83 ± 6.03 vs 17.23 ± 7.17 mins, p = 0.01, respectively). Lower cumulative freeze duration per vein was also observed with Polarx™ (203.38 ± 72.03 vs 224.9 ± 79.35 mins, p = 0.02). There was no significant difference in isolation time between the two groups (34.47 ± 21.23 vs 34.18 ± 26.79 secs, p = 0.9).
CONCLUSIONS: The novel Polarx™ cryoablation system showed similar efficacy in vein occlusion and isolation and safety profile when compared to Arctic Front™ cryoablation system. Procedure time, fluoroscopy time, and cumulative freeze duration were significantly lower with Polarx™ cryoablation system.