Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2016
Outcomes after cryoballoon or radiofrequency ablation for persistent atrial fibrillation: a multicentric propensity-score matched study.
Контролируемое клиническое исследованиеСтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеVideo-Audio MediaНазвание 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.
Boveda Serge, Providência Rui, Defaye Pascal, Pavin Dominique, Cebron Jean-Pierre, Anselme Frederic, Halimi Franck, Khoueiry Ziad, Combes Nicolas, Combes Stephane, Jacob Sophie, Albenque Jean-Paul, Sousa Pedro
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Recent data show no benefit of additional ablation beyond pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) in persistent atrial fibrillation (AF). Evidence suggests that radiofrequency energy (RF) and cryoballoon (CRYO) have comparable efficacy for PVI. We aimed to assess the outcomes after a single catheter ablation procedure, comparing PVI using CRYO vs. RF ablation for PVI plus additional ablation in a cohort of patients with persistent AF.
METHODS: In this prospective multicenter propensity score-matched comparison, 59 consecutive patients undergoing CRYO ablation of persistent AF were matched to 59 patients treated with RF from November 2010 to June 2012.
RESULTS: During a mean follow-up of 15.6 ± 11.5 months, 43.2 % of patients presented atrial arrhythmia relapse after a blanking period of 3 months, which was comparable between the two groups (40.7 % in CRYO vs. 45.8 % in RF, Log rank P = 0.14; HR = 0.67, 95 %CI 0.38-1.16, P = 0.15), despite the fact that 52.5 % of RF patients add additional complex fractionated atrial electrogram ablation, as well as left atrial linear ablation in over two-thirds (roof line in 67.8 % and mitral isthmus in 32.2 %). On multivariate Cox regression, only AF duration in years (HR = 1.10, 95 %CI 1.01-1.10, P = 0.04) was a predictor of relapse. Patients undergoing RF ablation presented a numerically, but non-significantly, lower complication rate (6.8 vs 10.2 %, P = 0.51).
CONCLUSION: In our multicenter experience, freedom from atrial arrhythmias was comparable among matched patients treated with CRYO and RF, despite non-significant trends in favor of RF in terms of complications, at the cost of longer procedure times.
METHODS: In this prospective multicenter propensity score-matched comparison, 59 consecutive patients undergoing CRYO ablation of persistent AF were matched to 59 patients treated with RF from November 2010 to June 2012.
RESULTS: During a mean follow-up of 15.6 ± 11.5 months, 43.2 % of patients presented atrial arrhythmia relapse after a blanking period of 3 months, which was comparable between the two groups (40.7 % in CRYO vs. 45.8 % in RF, Log rank P = 0.14; HR = 0.67, 95 %CI 0.38-1.16, P = 0.15), despite the fact that 52.5 % of RF patients add additional complex fractionated atrial electrogram ablation, as well as left atrial linear ablation in over two-thirds (roof line in 67.8 % and mitral isthmus in 32.2 %). On multivariate Cox regression, only AF duration in years (HR = 1.10, 95 %CI 1.01-1.10, P = 0.04) was a predictor of relapse. Patients undergoing RF ablation presented a numerically, but non-significantly, lower complication rate (6.8 vs 10.2 %, P = 0.51).
CONCLUSION: In our multicenter experience, freedom from atrial arrhythmias was comparable among matched patients treated with CRYO and RF, despite non-significant trends in favor of RF in terms of complications, at the cost of longer procedure times.