Mercy General Hospital and Dignity Health Heart and Vascular Institute, Sacramento, California.
Florida Heart Rhythm Specialists, PLLC, Plantation, Florida.
Heart Rhythm. 2017 Sep;14(9):1319-1325. doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2017.06.020. Epub 2017 Jun 15.
There are no recommendations on the optimal dosing for cryoablation of atrial fibrillation (Cryo-AF).
The purpose of this study was to develop and prospectively test a Cryo-AF dosing protocol guided exclusively by time-to-pulmonary vein (PV) isolation (TT-PVI) in patients undergoing a first-time Cryo-AF.
In this multicenter study, we examined the acute/long-term safety/efficacy of Cryo-AF using the proposed dosing algorithm (Cryo-AF; n = 355) against a conventional, nonstandardized approach (Cryo-AF; n = 400) in a nonrandomized fashion.
Acute PV isolation was achieved in 98.9% of patients in Cryo-AF (TT-PVI = 48 ± 16 seconds) vs 97.2% in Cryo-AF (P = .18). Cryo-AF was associated with shorter (149 ± 34 seconds vs 226 ± 46 seconds; P <.001) and fewer (1.7 ± 0.8 vs 2.9 ± 0.8; P <.001) cryoapplications, reduced overall ablation (16 ± 5 minutes vs 40 ± 14 minutes; P <.001), fluoroscopy time (13 ± 6 minutes vs 29 ± 13 minutes; P <.001), left atrial dwell time (51 ± 14 minutes vs 118 ± 25 minutes; P <.001), and total procedure time (84 ± 23 minutes vs 145 ± 49 minutes; P <.001) but similar nadir balloon temperature (-47°C ± 8°C vs -48°C ± 6°C; P = .41) and total thaw time (43 ± 27 seconds vs 45 ± 19 seconds; P = .09) as compared to Cryo-AF. Adverse events (2.0% vs 2.7%; P = .48), including persistent phrenic nerve palsy (0.6% vs 1.2%; P = .33) and 12-month freedom from all atrial arrhythmias (82.5% vs 78.3%; P = .14), were similar between Cryo-AF and Cryo-AF. However, Cryo-AF was specifically associated with fewer atypical atrial flutters/tachycardias during long-term follow-up (8.5% vs 13.5%; P = .02) as well as fewer late PV reconnections at redo procedures (5.0% vs 18.5%; P <.001).
A novel Cryo-AF dosing algorithm guided by TT-PVI can help individualize the ablation strategy and yield improved procedural endpoints and efficiency as compared to a conventional, nonstandardized approach.
目前尚无关于房颤冷冻消融(Cryo-AF)最佳剂量的推荐。
本研究旨在开发并前瞻性测试一种仅根据肺静脉(PV)隔离时间(TT-PVI)指导的房颤冷冻消融(Cryo-AF)剂量方案,该方案适用于首次接受房颤冷冻消融的患者。
在这项多中心研究中,我们采用提出的剂量算法(Cryo-AF;n=355)对房颤冷冻消融(Cryo-AF;n=400)进行了非随机比较,以急性/长期安全性/疗效为评估指标。
Cryo-AF 组中 98.9%的患者实现了急性 PV 隔离(TT-PVI=48±16 秒),而 Cryo-AF 组为 97.2%(P=0.18)。Cryo-AF 组与 Cryo-AF 组相比,冷冻消融时间更短(149±34 秒 vs 226±46 秒;P<0.001),冷冻消融应用次数更少(1.7±0.8 次 vs 2.9±0.8 次;P<0.001),总消融时间(16±5 分钟 vs 40±14 分钟;P<0.001),透视时间(13±6 分钟 vs 29±13 分钟;P<.001),左心房停留时间(51±14 分钟 vs 118±25 分钟;P<.001),总手术时间(84±23 分钟 vs 145±49 分钟;P<.001)更短,但最低球囊温度(-47°C±8°C vs -48°C±6°C;P=0.41)和总解冻时间(43±27 秒 vs 45±19 秒;P=0.09)相似。与 Cryo-AF 相比,不良事件(2.0% vs 2.7%;P=0.48),包括持续性膈神经麻痹(0.6% vs 1.2%;P=0.33)和 12 个月时所有房性心律失常的无复发率(82.5% vs 78.3%;P=0.14)相似。然而,Cryo-AF 与 Cryo-AF 相比,在长期随访中,特发性房性心动过速/房扑的发生率更低(8.5% vs 13.5%;P=0.02),在重复手术中,PV 再连接的发生率更低(5.0% vs 18.5%;P<.001)。
与传统的非标准化方法相比,一种新的房颤冷冻消融剂量方案,由 TT-PVI 指导,可帮助个体化消融策略,并产生更好的手术终点和效率。