Coronary Care Unit and Laboratory of Clinical and Experimental Cardiology, Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, Pavia, Italy; Department of Molecular Medicine, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy.
Coronary Care Unit and Laboratory of Clinical and Experimental Cardiology, Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, Pavia, Italy; Department of Molecular Medicine, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy.
Am J Cardiol. 2020 Apr 15;125(8):1170-1179. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2020.01.016. Epub 2020 Jan 28.
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.
肺静脉隔离是心房颤动 (AF) 消融的基石。射频 (RF) 是肺静脉隔离的标准治疗方法,而冷冻球囊 (CB) 消融已成为一种有效的替代方法。我们的荟萃分析旨在探讨 CB 与 RF 作为 AF 首次消融术的疗效和安全性。我们检索了研究这个问题的文献。主要疗效终点是 AF 复发。安全性结局包括:心包积液、心脏压塞、膈神经麻痹、血管并发症和大出血。纳入了 14 项随机对照研究和 34 项观察性研究。共有 7951 例患者接受 CB 消融,9641 例患者接受 RF 消融。平均随访时间为 14±7 个月。总体而言,与 RF 消融相比,CB 降低了 AF 复发的发生率(相对风险 [RR] 0.86;95%置信区间 [CI] 0.78 至 0.94;p=0.001),且这一结果在不同的研究设计和 AF 类型中是一致的。CB 膈神经麻痹的发生率较高,但与心包积液、心脏压塞(RR 0.58;95%CI 0.38 至 0.88;p=0.011)和血管并发症(RR 0.61;95%CI 0.48 至 0.77;p<0.001)的发生率较低相关。与 RF 相比,两种策略之间的大出血发生率无显著差异。CB 消融的手术时间比 RF 短(平均差异-20.76 分钟;p<0.001)。总之,考虑到其疗效/安全性特征和较短的手术时间,CB 消融是首次 AF 消融术的首选方法。