Radiofrequency versus Cryoballoon Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation: An Evaluation Using ECG, Holter Monitoring, and Implantable Loop Recorders to Monitor Absolute and Clinical Effectiveness

Introduction. While several studies have compared the radiofrequency current (RFC) and cryoablation for the treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), no study has monitored the long-term outcomes with the usage of implantable loop recorders (ILRs). Methods. We enrolled 89 consecutive patients with nonvalvular paroxysmal AF (N=44 for RFC and N=45 for cryoballoon). The primary efficacy end point was the assessment of effectiveness for each group (RFC versus cryoballoon) when examining freedom from arrhythmia by monitoring with ECG, Holter, and implantable loop recoder (ILR). The primary safety end point compared rates of adverse events between both groups. The secondary efficacy end point examined the duration of the postablation blanking period from ILR retrieved data. Results. The mean age of the study population was 56.6±10.2 years, and the follow-up duration was 12 months. There were no differences in baseline patient characteristics between groups. At 12 months, the absolute effectiveness (measured by ILR) was 65.9% in the RFC group and 51.1% in the cryoballoon group (OR = 1.85; 95% CI: 0.79–4.35; p=0.157), and the clinical effectiveness (measured by ECG and Holter) was 81.8% in the RFC group and 55.6% in the cryoballoon group (OR = 3.6; 95% CI: 1.37–9.46; p=0.008). There was no difference in safety between both groups. Asymptomatic episodes were significantly more present in the RFC group as measured by ILRs (p0.010)). The blanking period does not seem to be as important in cryoballoon as compared to RFC. Conclusion. RFC and cryoballoon ablation had similar absolute effectiveness at 12 months. ECG and Holter were effective when assessing the efficacy of the cryoballoon ablation; however, in the RFC group, ILR was necessary to accurately assess long-term efficacy

Outcomes of Cryoballoon Ablation in High-and Low-Volume Atrial Fibrillation Ablation Centres: A Russian Pilot Survey

properly cited. Purpose. The results of cryoballoon ablation (CBA) procedure have been mainly derived from studies conducted in experienced atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation centres. Here, we report on CBA efficacy and complications resulting from real practice of this procedure at both high-and low-volume centres. Methods. Among 62 Russian centres performing AF ablation, 15 (24%) used CBA technology for pulmonary vein isolation. The centres were asked to provide a detailed description of all CBA procedures performed and complications, if encountered. Results. Thirteen sites completed interviews on all CBAs in their centres (>95% of CBAs in Russia). Six sites were high-volume AF ablation (>100 AF cases/year) centres, and 7 were low-volume AF ablation. There was no statistical difference in arrhythmia-free rates between high-and low-volume centres (64.6 versus 60.8% at 6 months). Major complications developed in 1.5% of patients and were equally distributed between high-and low-volume centres. Minor procedurerelated events were encountered in 8% of patients and were more prevalent in high-volume centres. Total event and vascular access site event rates were higher in women than in men. Conclusions. CBA has an acceptable efficacy profile in real practice. In less experienced AF ablation centres, the major complication rate is equal to that in high-volume centres

Outcomes of Cryoballoon Ablation in High- and Low-Volume Atrial Fibrillation Ablation Centres: A Russian Pilot Survey

Purpose. The results of cryoballoon ablation (CBA) procedure have been mainly derived from studies conducted in experienced atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation centres. Here, we report on CBA efficacy and complications resulting from real practice of this procedure at both high- and low-volume centres. Methods. Among 62 Russian centres performing AF ablation, 15 (24%) used CBA technology for pulmonary vein isolation. The centres were asked to provide a detailed description of all CBA procedures performed and complications, if encountered. Results. Thirteen sites completed interviews on all CBAs in their centres (>95% of CBAs in Russia). Six sites were high-volume AF ablation (>100 AF cases/year) centres, and 7 were low-volume AF ablation. There was no statistical difference in arrhythmia-free rates between high- and low-volume centres (64.6 versus 60.8% at 6 months). Major complications developed in 1.5% of patients and were equally distributed between high- and low-volume centres. Minor procedure-related events were encountered in 8% of patients and were more prevalent in high-volume centres. Total event and vascular access site event rates were higher in women than in men. Conclusions. CBA has an acceptable efficacy profile in real practice. In less experienced AF ablation centres, the major complication rate is equal to that in high-volume centres