4.6 Article

Cryoablation of substrates adjacent to the atrioventricular node: acute and long-term safety of 1303 ablation procedures

Journal

EUROPACE
Volume 16, Issue 2, Pages 271-276

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/europace/eut215

Keywords

Cryoablation; AV block; AVNRT; Atrial tachycardia; Accessory pathway

Funding

  1. CryoCath Technologies, Inc.
  2. Medtronic, Inc.

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Radiofrequency (RF) ablation is effective for ablation of atrial arrhythmias. However, RF ablation in the vicinity of the atrioventricular (AV) node is associated with a risk of inadvertent, irreversible high-grade AV block, depending on the type of substrate. Cryoablation is an alternative method. The objective was to investigate the acute and long-term risks of AV block during cryoablation. We studied 1303 consecutive cryoablations of substrates in the vicinity of the AV node in 1201 patients (median age 51 years, range 689 years) on acute and long-term impairment to the AV nodal conduction system. The arrhythmias treated were AV nodal reentrant tachycardias (n1116), paraseptal and superoparaseptal accessory pathways (n100), and focal atrial tachycardias (n87). In 158 (12) procedures, cryomapping (38 cases) or cryoablation (120 cases) were stopped due to transient AV block (first-degree AV block 74 cases, second-degree AV block 67 cases, and third-degree AV block 17 cases) after which another site was tested. Transient AV block occurred within seconds of mapping up to 3 min of ablation. The incidence of AV block was similar for different substrates. In most cases, AV nodal conduction was restored within seconds but in two cases transient AV block lasted 21 and 45 min, respectively. There were no cases of acute permanent AV blocks. No late AV blocks occurred during follow-up (mean 24 months, range 696 months). Cryoablation adjacent to the AV node carries a negligible risk of permanent AV block. Transient AV block during ablation is a benign finding.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available