TY - JOUR
T1 - Procedure characteristics and outcomes of atrial fibrillation ablation procedures using cryoballoon versus radiofrequency ablation
T2 - A report from the GWTG-AFIB registry
AU - Friedman, Daniel J.
AU - Holmes, Da Juanicia
AU - Curtis, Anne B.
AU - Ellenbogen, Kenneth A.
AU - Frankel, David S.
AU - Knight, Bradley P.
AU - Russo, Andrea M.
AU - Matsouaka, Roland
AU - Turakhia, Mintu P.
AU - Lewis, William R.
AU - Piccini, Jonathan P.
N1 - Funding Information:
Funding for this analysis was provided by the American Heart Association as part of a Get With the Guidelines Young Investigator Award awarded to Dr. Friedman. The Get With The Guidelines®‐AFib (GWTG‐AF) program is provided by the American Heart Association. GWTG‐AF is sponsored, in part, by Novartis and BMS Pfizer.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC
PY - 2021/2
Y1 - 2021/2
N2 - Introduction: Cryoballoon ablation (CBA) is an alternative to radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) and real-world comparisons of this strategy are lacking. As such, we sought to compare patient and periprocedural characteristics and outcomes of CBA versus RFA in the Get With the Guidelines AFIB Registry. Methods: Categorical variables were compared via the χ2 test and continuous variables were compared via the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Adjusted analyses were performed using overlap weighting of propensity scores. Results: A total of 5247 (1465 CBA, 3782 RFA) ablation procedures were reported from 33 sites. Those undergoing CBA more often had paroxysmal AF (60.0% vs. 48.8%) and no prior AF ablation (87.5% vs. 73.8%). CHA2DS2-VASc scores were similar. Among de novo ablations, most ablations involved intracardiac echocardiography and electroanatomic mapping, but both were less common with CBA (87.3% vs. 93.9%, p <.0001, and 87.7% vs. 94.6%, p <.0001, respectively). CBA was associated with shorter procedures (129 vs. 179 min, p <.0001), increased fluoroscopy use (19 vs. 11 min, p <.0001), and similar ablation times (27 vs. 35 min, p =.15). Nonpulmonary vein ablation was common with CBA: roof line 38.6%, floor line 20.4%, cavotricuspid isthmus 27.7%. RFA was associated with more total complications compared to CBA (5.4% vs. 2.3%, p <.0001), due to more volume overload and “other” events, although phrenic nerve injury was more common with CBA (0.9% vs 0.1%, p =.0001). In the adjusted model, any complication was less common among CBA cases (odds ratio, 0.45; confidence interval, 0.25–0.79, p =.0056). Conclusion: CBA was associated with fewer complications, and shorter procedure times, and greater fluoroscopy times, compared to RFA. Nonpulmonary vein ablation and electroanatomic mapping system use was common with CBA.
AB - Introduction: Cryoballoon ablation (CBA) is an alternative to radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) and real-world comparisons of this strategy are lacking. As such, we sought to compare patient and periprocedural characteristics and outcomes of CBA versus RFA in the Get With the Guidelines AFIB Registry. Methods: Categorical variables were compared via the χ2 test and continuous variables were compared via the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Adjusted analyses were performed using overlap weighting of propensity scores. Results: A total of 5247 (1465 CBA, 3782 RFA) ablation procedures were reported from 33 sites. Those undergoing CBA more often had paroxysmal AF (60.0% vs. 48.8%) and no prior AF ablation (87.5% vs. 73.8%). CHA2DS2-VASc scores were similar. Among de novo ablations, most ablations involved intracardiac echocardiography and electroanatomic mapping, but both were less common with CBA (87.3% vs. 93.9%, p <.0001, and 87.7% vs. 94.6%, p <.0001, respectively). CBA was associated with shorter procedures (129 vs. 179 min, p <.0001), increased fluoroscopy use (19 vs. 11 min, p <.0001), and similar ablation times (27 vs. 35 min, p =.15). Nonpulmonary vein ablation was common with CBA: roof line 38.6%, floor line 20.4%, cavotricuspid isthmus 27.7%. RFA was associated with more total complications compared to CBA (5.4% vs. 2.3%, p <.0001), due to more volume overload and “other” events, although phrenic nerve injury was more common with CBA (0.9% vs 0.1%, p =.0001). In the adjusted model, any complication was less common among CBA cases (odds ratio, 0.45; confidence interval, 0.25–0.79, p =.0056). Conclusion: CBA was associated with fewer complications, and shorter procedure times, and greater fluoroscopy times, compared to RFA. Nonpulmonary vein ablation and electroanatomic mapping system use was common with CBA.
KW - ablation
KW - atrial fibrillation
KW - complications
KW - cryoablation
KW - radiofrequency
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85099061389&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85099061389&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1111/jce.14858
DO - 10.1111/jce.14858
M3 - Article
C2 - 33368764
AN - SCOPUS:85099061389
SN - 1045-3873
VL - 32
SP - 248
EP - 259
JO - Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology
JF - Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology
IS - 2
ER -