Cryoablation versus hybrid radiofrequency with high- and very-high-power short-duration catheter ablation for the treatment of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation

Abstract

BackgroundHigh-power short-duration (HPSD) and very-high-power short-duration (vHPSD-90 W/4 s) radiofrequency (RF) technology has reduced the procedure time of pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) using RF without compromising the efficacy of the technique. The current study compares the novel technology of HPSD/vHPSD with cryoablation (CRYO) in terms of efficacy, safety, and procedure time in a cohort of symptomatic patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (pAF). MethodsThis is a prospective, non-randomized trial. Patients with pAF received either CRYO or HPSD/vHPSD RF PVI. The primary endpoint of the study was arrhythmia recurrence in a 12 month follow-up period. Secondary endpoints included procedure time, fluoroscopy time, and safety. Results104 patients were included (45 in HPSD/vHPSD and 59 in CRYO), with comparable characteristics between groups. The follow-up was 12.4 ± 0.5 months. There was no significant difference regarding arrhythmia recurrences during the early post-procedural period of the first 3 months (8.9% recurrences in HPSD/vHPSD versus 5.1% in CRYO-p 0.463) and in the mid-term follow-up of 12 months (17.8% recurrences in HPSD/vHPSD versus 10.2% in CRYO-p 0.385). Safety was excellent for both procedures. CRYO was a procedure of significantly shorter duration (64.64 ± 8.94 min versus 75.29 ± 18.30 min, p 0.0001) at the expense of longer fluoroscopy time (HPSD/vHPSD 5.34 ± 1.83 versus 7.89 ± 3.70 min CRYO, p 0.001). ConclusionsHPSD/vHPSD and CRYO in pAF were comparable regarding the arrhythmia recurrence rates in a 12-month follow-up with excellent safety. The hybrid approach of HPSD/vHPSD has accelerated RF-PVI compared to conventional RF, but CRYO remains a procedure of significantly shorter duration at the expense of longer fluoroscopy time.