Time to –30°C as a predictor of acute success during cryoablation in patients with atrial fibrillation

Background: Freezing rate of second-generation cryoballoon (CB) is a biophysical parameter that could assist pulmonary vein isolation. The aim of this study is to assess freezing rate (time to reach –30°C ([TT-30C]) as an early predictor of acute pulmonary vein isolation using the CB. Methods: Biophysical data from CB freeze applications within a multicenter, nation-wide CB ablation registry were gathered. Successful application (SA), was defined as achieving durable intraprocedural vein isolation with time to isolation in under 60 s (SA-TTI<60) as achieving durable vein isolation in under 60 s. Logistic regressions were performed and predictive models were built for the data set. Results: 12,488 CB applications from 1,733 atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation procedures were included within 27 centers from a Spanish CB AF ablation registry. SA was achieved in 6,349 of 9,178 (69.2%) total freeze applications, and SA-TTI<60 was obtained in 2,673 of 4,784 (55.9%) freezes and electrogram monitoring was present. TT-30C was shorter in the SA group (33.4 ± 9.2 vs 39.3 ± 12.1 s; p < 0.001) and SA-TTI<60 group (31.8 ± 7.6 vs. 38.5 ± 11.5 s; p < 0.001). Also, a 10 s increase in TT-30C was associated with a 41% reduction in the odds for an SA (odds ratio [OR] 0.59; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.56–0.63) and a 57% reduction in the odds for achieving SA-TTI<60 (OR 0.43; 95% CI 0.39–0.49), when corrected for electrogram visualization, vein position, and application order. Conclusions: Time to reach –30°C is an early predictor of the quality of a CB application and can be used to guide the ablation procedure even in the absence of electrogram monitoring.

Cryoballoon ablation for persistent and paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: procedural differences and results from the spanish registry (RECABA)

Introduction: Cryoballoon ablation (CBA) has become a standard treatment for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PaAF) but limited data is available for outcomes in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (PeAF). Methods: We analyzed the first 944 patients included in the Spanish Prospective Multi-center Observation Post-market Registry to compare characteristics and outcomes of patients undergoing CBA for PeAF versus PaAF. Results: A total of 944 patients (57.8 ± 10.4 years; 70.1% male) with AF (27.9% persistent) were prospectively included from 25 centers. PeAF patients were more likely to have structural heart disease (67.7 vs. 11.4%; p < 0.001) and left atrium dilation (72.6 vs. 43.3%; p < 0.001). CBA of PeAF was less likely to be performed under general anesthesia (10.7 vs. 22.2%; p < 0.001), with an arterial line (32.2 vs. 44.6%; p < 0.001) and assisted transeptal puncture (11.9 vs. 17.9%; p = 0.025). During an application, PeAF patients had a longer time to -30 °C (35.91 ± 14.20 vs. 34.93 ± 12.87 s; p = 0.021) and a colder balloon nadir temperature during vein isolation (-35.04 ± 9.58 vs. -33.61 ± 10.32 °C; p = 0.004), but received fewer bonus freeze applications (30.7 vs. 41.1%; p < 0.001). There were no differences in acute pulmonary vein isolation and procedure-related complications. Overall, 76.7% of patients were free from AF recurrences at 15-month follow-up (78.9% in PaAF vs. 70.9% in PeAF; p = 0.09). Conclusions: Patients with PeAF have a more diseased substrate, and CBA procedures performed in such patients were more simplified, although longer/colder freeze applications were often applied. The acute efficacy/safety profile of CBA was similar between PaAF and PeAF patients, but long-term results were better in PaAF patients