4.4 Article

Meta-Analysis Comparing Cryoballoon Versus Radiofrequency as First Ablation Procedure for Atrial Fibrillation

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
卷 125, 期 8, 页码 1170-1179

出版社

EXCERPTA MEDICA INC-ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2020.01.016

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Pulmonary vein isolation is the cornerstone of atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation. Radiofrequency (RF) represents a standard of care for pulmonary vein isolation, whereas cryoballoon (CB) ablation has emerged as a valid alternative. The aim of our meta-analysis was to explore the efficacy and safety of CB compared with RF as first ablation procedure for AF. We searched the literature for studies that investigated this issue. The primary efficacy outcome was AF recurrence. The safety outcomes were: pericardial effusion, cardiac tamponade, phrenic nerve palsy, vascular complications, and major bleedings. Fourteen randomized controlled studies and 34 observational studies were included in the analysis. A total of 7,951 patients underwent CB ablation, whereas 9,641 received RF ablation. Mean follow-up was 14 +/- 7 months. Overall, CB reduced the incidence of AF recurrence compared with RF ablation (relative risk [RR] 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.78 to 0.94; p = 0.001), and this result was consistent across different study design and AF type. CB had a significantly higher rate of phrenic nerve palsy, whereas it was related to a lower incidence of pericardial effusion, cardiac tamponade (RR 0.58; 95% CI 0.38 to 0.88; p = 0.011) and vascular complications (RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.48 to 0.77; p <0.001) compared with RF. There was no significant difference in major bleedings between the 2 strategies. CB ablation had a shorter procedural time compared with RF (mean difference -20.76 minutes; p <0.001). In conclusion, considered its efficacy/safety profile and short procedural time, CB ablation represents the preferable option for first AF ablation procedure. (C) 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据