Xu Junxia, Huang Yingqun, Cai Hongbin, Qi Yue, Jia Nan, Shen Weifeng, Lin Jinxiu, Peng Feng, Niu Wenquan
Department of Geratology, Fuzhou General Hospital of Nanjing Command, PLA, Fuzhou, Fujian, China ; Department of Geratology, Fozhou General Hospital, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, Fujian, China.
Department of Cardiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, Fujian, China.
PLoS One. 2014 Feb 28;9(2):e90323. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0090323. eCollection 2014.
Currently radiofrequency and cryoballoon ablations are the two standard ablation systems used for catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation; however, there is no universal consensus on which ablation is the optimal choice. We therefore sought to undertake a meta-analysis with special emphases on comparing the efficacy and safety between cryoballoon and radiofrequency ablations by synthesizing published clinical trials.
Articles were identified by searching the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases before September 2013, by reviewing the bibliographies of eligible reports, and by consulting with experts in this field. Data were extracted independently and in duplicate. There were respectively 469 and 635 patients referred for cryoballoon and radiofrequency ablations from 14 qualified clinical trials. Overall analyses indicated that cryoballoon ablation significantly reduced fluoroscopic time and total procedure time by a weighted mean of 14.13 (95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 2.82 to 25.45; P = 0.014) minutes and 29.65 (95% CI: 8.54 to 50.77; P = 0.006) minutes compared with radiofrequency ablation, respectively, whereas ablation time in cryoballoon ablation was nonsignificantly elongated by a weighted mean of 11.66 (95% CI: -10.71 to 34.04; P = 0.307) minutes. Patients referred for cryoballoon ablation had a high yet nonsignificant success rate of catheter ablation compared with cryoballoon ablation (odds ratio; 95% CI; P: 1.34; 0.53 to 3.36; 0.538), and cryoballoon ablation was also found to be associated with the relatively low risk of having recurrent atrial fibrillation (0.75; 0.3 to 1.88; 0.538) and major complications (0.46; 0.11 to 1.83; 0.269). There was strong evidence of heterogeneity and low probability of publication bias.
Our findings demonstrate greater improvement in fluoroscopic time and total procedure duration for atrial fibrillation patients referred for cryoballoon ablation than those for radiofrequency ablation.
目前,射频消融和冷冻球囊消融是用于心房颤动导管消融的两种标准消融系统;然而,对于哪种消融是最佳选择尚无普遍共识。因此,我们试图通过综合已发表的临床试验进行一项荟萃分析,特别着重比较冷冻球囊消融和射频消融之间的疗效和安全性。
通过检索2013年9月之前的MEDLINE和EMBASE数据库、查阅符合条件报告的参考文献以及咨询该领域专家来识别文章。数据由两人独立提取。来自14项合格临床试验的分别有469例和635例患者接受了冷冻球囊消融和射频消融。总体分析表明,与射频消融相比,冷冻球囊消融显著减少了透视时间和总手术时间,加权平均值分别减少了14.13(95%置信区间[95%CI]:2.82至25.45;P = 0.014)分钟和29.65(95%CI:8.54至50.77;P = 0.006)分钟,而冷冻球囊消融的消融时间加权平均值非显著延长了11.66(95%CI:-10.71至34.04;P = 0.307)分钟。接受冷冻球囊消融的患者与接受射频消融的患者相比,导管消融成功率较高但无显著差异(优势比;95%CI;P:1.34;0.53至3.36;0.538),并且还发现冷冻球囊消融与房颤复发风险相对较低(0.75;0.3至1.88;0.538)和主要并发症风险相对较低(0.46;0.11至1.83;0.269)相关。有强有力的证据表明存在异质性且发表偏倚的可能性较低。
我们的研究结果表明,对于接受冷冻球囊消融的心房颤动患者,与接受射频消融的患者相比,在透视时间和总手术时长方面有更大改善。