Cryoballoon ablation without use of contrast for the treatment of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation.

Cardiology journal Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-01-30 DOI:10.5603/cj.95969
Paweł Derejko, Jacek Kuśnierz, Aleksander Bardyszewski, Michał Orczykowski, Dobromiła Dzwonkowska, Magdalena Polańska-Skrzypczyk, Łukasz Jan Szumowski
{"title":"Cryoballoon ablation without use of contrast for the treatment of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation.","authors":"Paweł Derejko, Jacek Kuśnierz, Aleksander Bardyszewski, Michał Orczykowski, Dobromiła Dzwonkowska, Magdalena Polańska-Skrzypczyk, Łukasz Jan Szumowski","doi":"10.5603/cj.95969","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cryoballoon ablation (CBA) for atrial fibrillation (AF) is usually preceded by demonstrating pulmonary vein (PV) occlusion using contrast. The aim of the study was to determine efficacy and safety of a simplified protocol for CBA performed without demonstrating PV occlusion and compare achieved results with conventional CBA.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Paroxysmal AF patients undergoing a first-time CBA were prospectively included. In the non-contrast (NC) group CBA was performed using standardized protocol without demonstrating PV occlusion. In the conventional contrast (CC) group ablations were performed after confirmation of PV occlusion.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The NC and CC groups comprised 51 and 22 patients, respectively. PVI according to the group assignment was achieved in 34 (67%) and 21 (95.5%) patients from the NC and CC groups, respectively (p < 0.001). In the NC group, 184 (90%) out of 204 veins were isolated without venography. There were no differences between the NC and CC groups in terms of procedure duration (89.7 ± 22.6 vs. 90.0 ± 20.6 min; p = 0.7) and fluoroscopy time (15.3 ± 6.3 vs. 15 ± 4.5 min; p = 0.8). In the NC group, the use of contrast was significantly lower compared to the CC group (4.9 ± 10.1 vs. 19.4 ± 8.6 mL, p < 0.001). There were no serious adverse events in both groups. A 1-year freedom from AF was achieved in 73.5% and 71.5% of patients from the NC and CC groups, respectively (p = 1).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Cryoballoon ablation without demonstrating vein occlusion with contrast is safe and feasible. Proposed simplified approach enables isolation of the vast majority of pulmonary veins with a significant reduction in the amount of contrast used.</p>","PeriodicalId":93923,"journal":{"name":"Cardiology journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11229812/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cardiology journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5603/cj.95969","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/30 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Cryoballoon ablation (CBA) for atrial fibrillation (AF) is usually preceded by demonstrating pulmonary vein (PV) occlusion using contrast. The aim of the study was to determine efficacy and safety of a simplified protocol for CBA performed without demonstrating PV occlusion and compare achieved results with conventional CBA.

Methods: Paroxysmal AF patients undergoing a first-time CBA were prospectively included. In the non-contrast (NC) group CBA was performed using standardized protocol without demonstrating PV occlusion. In the conventional contrast (CC) group ablations were performed after confirmation of PV occlusion.

Results: The NC and CC groups comprised 51 and 22 patients, respectively. PVI according to the group assignment was achieved in 34 (67%) and 21 (95.5%) patients from the NC and CC groups, respectively (p < 0.001). In the NC group, 184 (90%) out of 204 veins were isolated without venography. There were no differences between the NC and CC groups in terms of procedure duration (89.7 ± 22.6 vs. 90.0 ± 20.6 min; p = 0.7) and fluoroscopy time (15.3 ± 6.3 vs. 15 ± 4.5 min; p = 0.8). In the NC group, the use of contrast was significantly lower compared to the CC group (4.9 ± 10.1 vs. 19.4 ± 8.6 mL, p < 0.001). There were no serious adverse events in both groups. A 1-year freedom from AF was achieved in 73.5% and 71.5% of patients from the NC and CC groups, respectively (p = 1).

Conclusions: Cryoballoon ablation without demonstrating vein occlusion with contrast is safe and feasible. Proposed simplified approach enables isolation of the vast majority of pulmonary veins with a significant reduction in the amount of contrast used.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
不使用造影剂的低温球囊消融术治疗阵发性心房颤动。
背景:心房颤动(房颤)的冷冻球囊消融术(CBA)通常需要先使用造影剂显示肺静脉(PV)闭塞。本研究旨在确定在不显示肺静脉闭塞的情况下进行 CBA 的简化方案的有效性和安全性,并将取得的结果与传统 CBA 进行比较:前瞻性地纳入了首次接受 CBA 的阵发性房颤患者。在非对比(NC)组中,使用标准化方案进行 CBA,但不显示 PV 闭塞。传统造影剂(CC)组在确认 PV 闭塞后进行消融:NC组和CC组分别有51名和22名患者。根据组别分配,NC 组和 CC 组分别有 34 名(67%)和 21 名(95.5%)患者实现了 PVI(P < 0.001)。在 NC 组中,204 条静脉中有 184 条(90%)在未进行静脉造影的情况下被分离出来。NC 组和 CC 组在手术时间(89.7 ± 22.6 对 90.0 ± 20.6 分钟;p = 0.7)和透视时间(15.3 ± 6.3 对 15 ± 4.5 分钟;p = 0.8)方面没有差异。NC组的造影剂用量明显低于CC组(4.9 ± 10.1 vs. 19.4 ± 8.6 mL,p < 0.001)。两组均未发生严重不良事件。NC组和CC组分别有73.5%和71.5%的患者在1年内无房颤(P = 1):结论:无需造影剂显示静脉闭塞的冷冻球囊消融术是安全可行的。结论:无需造影剂显示静脉闭塞的低温球囊消融术是安全可行的,所提出的简化方法可隔离绝大多数肺静脉,同时显著减少造影剂用量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A real-life clinical application of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in patients with acute myocarditis - one-center observational retrospective study. Cardiovascular sequelae in symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection survivors. Pregabalin and gabapentin-induced heart failure. A comparison of the management and five-year outcomes of patients treated for chronic coronary syndrome between 2006-2007 and 2015-2016 - insights from the PRESAGE registry. Effect of alcohol abuse on selected markers of inflammation, hemostasis, and endothelial function.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1