Repeat Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation Recurrence Post Cryoballoon or Radiofrequency Ablation in the FIRE AND ICE Trial

K. Kuck, J. Albenque, K. Chun, A. Fürnkranz, Mathias Busch, Arif Elvan, M. Schlüter, Kendra M. Braegelmann, F. Kueffer, L. Hemingway, T. Arentz, C. Tondo, J. Brugada, K. Kuck, Andreas Metzner, T. Fink, Christine Lemeš, J. Chun, Shaojie Chen, Boris Schmidt, F. Bologna, Stefano Bordignon, A. Elvan, Mohamed Mouden, T. Arentz, Björn Müller-Eschenborn, Amir S. Jadidi, M. Kühne, C. Sticherling, Mathias Busch, Anne Krüger, Edison Abdiou, L. Mont, Eva M Benito Martín, Francisco Alarcón Sanz, P. Neužil, L. Dujka, R. Ruiz-Granell, A. Barrera, Amalio Ruiz Salas, J. Albenque, Serge Boveda, Volker Kühlkamp, Bogdan Stanciu, N. Pérez‐Castellano, J. Villacastín, V. Cañadas Godoy
{"title":"Repeat Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation Recurrence Post Cryoballoon or Radiofrequency Ablation in the FIRE AND ICE Trial","authors":"K. Kuck, J. Albenque, K. Chun, A. Fürnkranz, Mathias Busch, Arif Elvan, M. Schlüter, Kendra M. Braegelmann, F. Kueffer, L. Hemingway, T. Arentz, C. Tondo, J. Brugada, K. Kuck, Andreas Metzner, T. Fink, Christine Lemeš, J. Chun, Shaojie Chen, Boris Schmidt, F. Bologna, Stefano Bordignon, A. Elvan, Mohamed Mouden, T. Arentz, Björn Müller-Eschenborn, Amir S. Jadidi, M. Kühne, C. Sticherling, Mathias Busch, Anne Krüger, Edison Abdiou, L. Mont, Eva M Benito Martín, Francisco Alarcón Sanz, P. Neužil, L. Dujka, R. Ruiz-Granell, A. Barrera, Amalio Ruiz Salas, J. Albenque, Serge Boveda, Volker Kühlkamp, Bogdan Stanciu, N. Pérez‐Castellano, J. Villacastín, V. Cañadas Godoy","doi":"10.1161/CIRCEP.119.007247","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background\nThe FIRE AND ICE trial assessed efficacy and safety of pulmonary vein (PV) isolation using cryoballoon versus radiofrequency current (RFC) ablation in patients with drug refractory, symptomatic, paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF). The purpose of the current study was to assess index lesion durability as well as reablation strategy and outcomes in trial patients undergoing a reablation procedure.\n\n\nMethods\nPatients with reablation procedures during FIRE AND ICEwere retrospectively consented and enrolled at 13 trial centers. The first reablation for each patient was included in the analysis. Documented arrhythmias before reablation, number and location of reconnected PVs, lesions created during reablations, procedural characteristics, and acute as well as long-term outcomes were assessed.\n\n\nResults\nEighty-nine (36 cryoballoon and 53 RFC) patients were included in this study. Paroxysmal atrial fibrillation was the predominant recurrent arrhythmia (69%) before reablation. Reablations occurred at a median of 173 and 182 days (P=0.54) in the cryoballoon and RFC cohorts, respectively. The number of reconnected PVs was significantly higher in the RFC than the cryoballoon group (2.1±1.4 versus 1.4±1.1; P=0.010), which was driven by significantly more reconnected left superior PVs and markedly more reconnected right superior PVs. The number of (predominantly RFC) lesions applied during reablation was significantly greater in patients originally treated with RFC (3.3±1.3 versus 2.5±1.5; P=0.015) with no difference in overall acute success (P=0.70). After reablation, no differences in procedure-related rehospitalization or antiarrhythmic drug utilization were observed between cohorts.\n\n\nConclusions\nAt reablation, patients originally treated with the cryoballoon had significantly fewer reconnected PVs, which may reflect RFC catheter instability in certain left atrial regions, and thus required fewer lesions for reablation success. Repeat ablations were predominantly performed with RFC and resulted in similar acute success, duration of hospitalization, and antiarrhythmic drug prescription between the study cohorts.","PeriodicalId":10167,"journal":{"name":"Circulation: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology","volume":"38 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-05-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"103","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Circulation: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCEP.119.007247","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 103

Abstract

Background The FIRE AND ICE trial assessed efficacy and safety of pulmonary vein (PV) isolation using cryoballoon versus radiofrequency current (RFC) ablation in patients with drug refractory, symptomatic, paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF). The purpose of the current study was to assess index lesion durability as well as reablation strategy and outcomes in trial patients undergoing a reablation procedure. Methods Patients with reablation procedures during FIRE AND ICEwere retrospectively consented and enrolled at 13 trial centers. The first reablation for each patient was included in the analysis. Documented arrhythmias before reablation, number and location of reconnected PVs, lesions created during reablations, procedural characteristics, and acute as well as long-term outcomes were assessed. Results Eighty-nine (36 cryoballoon and 53 RFC) patients were included in this study. Paroxysmal atrial fibrillation was the predominant recurrent arrhythmia (69%) before reablation. Reablations occurred at a median of 173 and 182 days (P=0.54) in the cryoballoon and RFC cohorts, respectively. The number of reconnected PVs was significantly higher in the RFC than the cryoballoon group (2.1±1.4 versus 1.4±1.1; P=0.010), which was driven by significantly more reconnected left superior PVs and markedly more reconnected right superior PVs. The number of (predominantly RFC) lesions applied during reablation was significantly greater in patients originally treated with RFC (3.3±1.3 versus 2.5±1.5; P=0.015) with no difference in overall acute success (P=0.70). After reablation, no differences in procedure-related rehospitalization or antiarrhythmic drug utilization were observed between cohorts. Conclusions At reablation, patients originally treated with the cryoballoon had significantly fewer reconnected PVs, which may reflect RFC catheter instability in certain left atrial regions, and thus required fewer lesions for reablation success. Repeat ablations were predominantly performed with RFC and resulted in similar acute success, duration of hospitalization, and antiarrhythmic drug prescription between the study cohorts.
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
在FIRE和ICE试验中反复消融治疗低温球囊或射频消融后房颤复发
背景:FIRE和ICE试验评估了低温球囊肺静脉隔离与射频电流(RFC)消融治疗难治性、症状性阵发性心房颤动(AF)患者的有效性和安全性。当前研究的目的是评估再消融患者的指数损伤持久性以及再消融策略和结果。方法回顾性分析13个试验中心接受再消融手术的患者。每位患者的第一次再消融被纳入分析。评估再消融前记录的心律失常、再连接pv的数量和位置、再消融过程中产生的病变、手术特征以及急性和长期结果。结果共纳入89例患者,其中低温球囊36例,RFC 53例。再消融前,阵发性心房颤动是主要的复发性心律失常(69%)。在低温球囊组和RFC组中,分别在173天和182天(P=0.54)出现恢复。RFC中重新连接的pv数明显高于低温球囊组(2.1±1.4比1.4±1.1;P=0.010),其驱动因素是左上pv的再连接显著增加,右上pv的再连接显著增加。最初接受RFC治疗的患者在再消融期间应用的病变数量(主要是RFC)明显更多(3.3±1.3 vs 2.5±1.5;P=0.015),总体急性成功率无差异(P=0.70)。再消融后,在手术相关的再住院或抗心律失常药物的使用方面,在队列之间没有观察到差异。结论在再消融术中,原低温球囊治疗患者的PVs再连接明显减少,这可能反映了RFC导管在左心房某些区域的不稳定性,因此需要较少的病变才能成功再消融术。重复消融主要在RFC中进行,并且在研究队列中导致相似的急性成功、住院时间和抗心律失常药物处方。
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
Coronary Sinus Metabolite 12,13-diHOME Is a Novel Biomarker for Left Atrial Remodeling in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Impact of Contact Force on Pulsed Field Ablation Outcomes Using Focal Point Catheter Characteristics of Right-Sided Accessory Pathways Associated With Right Cardiac Veins Prognostic Impact of Sinus Rhythm in Atrial Fibrillation Patients: Separating Rhythm Outcomes From Randomized Strategy Findings From the CABANA Trial Trends Favoring an Anatomical Approach to Radiofrequency Catheter Ablation of Idiopathic Ventricular Arrhythmias Originating From the Left Ventricular Summit
×
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