P1918Comparison of the clinical outcome of pulmonary vein isolation with cryoballoon and radiofrequency ablation for atrial fibrillation with pulmonary vein triggers

Abstract

Abstract Background Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) using radiofrequency (RF) or cryoballoon (CB) has been an established treatment for atrial fibrillation. PVI using RF is the most common method with a rather complex technique of a point-by-point tissue heating and navigation of electro-anatomical-guided mapping system, and PVI with CB is also the common method with a relatively simple technique of freezing balloon occlusion. These 2 types of ablation are comparable in terms of the efficacy of the PVI procedure. Purpose The data on the clinical outcome of each AF type with PV triggers has been limited. We compared the outcome of success rate between RF and CB group with respect to each AF type, and further assessed the efficacy of pulmonary vein isolation for AF patients with the origin of only PV. Methods A total of 3402 AF patients (age 64±11; 2463 males) underwent initial PVI from May 2009 to July 2018 (PAF: 67%, non-PAF: 37%). Radiofrequency using irrigation-tip catheter was employed to 1796 patients since May 2009 (RF-PAF: 55%, RF-non-PAF: 45%). Second-generation cryoballoon was employed to other 1606 patients since September 2014 (CB-PAF: 81%, CB-non-PAF: 19%). In CB group, PV touch-up ablation with RF was needed for 113 patients (7%) (CB-PAF: 6%, CB-non-PAF: 13%; p<0.001). After PVI, additional ablation for non-PV foci was undergone after the induction by using isoproterenol infusion and rapid atrial pacing (RF-AF: 34%, CB-AF: 32%; p=0.107). Results In all PAF patients, AF free survival rate was significantly superior in CB group (2-years Kaplan-Meir event rate, CB 83.2%, RF 75.2%; log-rank p<0.001). The percentage of patients with non-PV foci was almost equivalent in both group (CB 30%, RF 31%, p=0.644). And in PAF patients with only PV-foci, AF free survival rate was significantly superior in CB group (2-years Kaplan-Meir event rate, CB 85.0%, RF 78.8%; log-rank p<0.001). On the other hand, in all non-PAF patients, AF free survival rate was almost equivalent in both non-PAF group (2-years Kaplan-Meir event rate, CB 65.5%, RF-non-PAF 70.0%; log-rank p=0.9). The percentage of patients with non-PV foci was almost equivalent in both group (CB 40%, RF 39%, p=0.731), And in non-PAF patients with only PV-foci, AF free survival rate was almost equivalent in both non-PAF group (2-years Kaplan-Meir event rate, CB 69.7%, RF 73.0%; log-rank p=0.376). Conclusions Our study showed better outcome of PVI with CB for PAF patients with PV triggers, and indicated the non-inferiority of PVI with CB for non-PAF patients with PV triggers to PVI with RF.