Peng Xinyi, Liu Xiao, Tian Hongbo, Chen Yu, Li Xuexun
Heart Center, Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Department of Cardiology, Qingdao University Medical College Affiliated Yantai Yuhuangding Hospital, Yantai, China.
Front Cardiovasc Med. 2021 Dec 15;8:787270. doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2021.787270. eCollection 2021.
Balloon-based catheter ablations, including hot balloon ablation (HBA) and cryoballoon ablation (CBA), have rapidly emerged as alternative modalities to conventional catheter atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation owing to their impressive procedural advantages and better clinical outcomes and safety. However, the differences in characteristics, effectiveness, safety, and efficacy between HBA and CBA remain undetermined. This study compares the characteristic and prognosis differences between HBA and CBA. Electronic search was conducted in six databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, ClinicalTrial.gov, and medRxiv) with specific search strategies. Eligible studies were selected based on specific criteria; all records were identified up to June 1, 2021. The mean difference, odds ratios (ORs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to evaluate the clinical outcomes. Heterogeneity and risk of bias were assessed using predefined criteria. Seven studies were included in the final meta-analysis. Compared with CBA, more patients in the HBA group had residual conduction and required a higher incidence of touch-up ablation (TUA) [OR (95% CI) = 2.76 (2.02-3.77), = 0.000]. The most frequent sites of TUA were the left superior pulmonary veins (PVs) in the HBA group vs. the right inferior PVs in the CBA group. During HBA surgery, the left and right superior PVs were more likely to have a higher fluid injection volume. Furthermore, the procedure time was longer in the HBA group than in the CBA group [weighted mean difference (95% CI) = 14.24 (4.39-24.09), = 0.005]. Patients in the CBA group could have an increased risk of AF occurrence, and accepted more antiarrhythmic drug therapy; however, the result was insignificant. HBA and CBA are practical ablation approaches for AF treatment. Patients who received HBA had a higher incidence of TUA and longer procedure time. Clinical outcomes during the mid-term follow-up between HBA and CBA were comparable. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=259487, identifier: CRD42021259487.
基于球囊的导管消融术,包括热球囊消融术(HBA)和冷冻球囊消融术(CBA),由于其显著的操作优势、更好的临床疗效和安全性,已迅速成为传统导管房颤(AF)消融术的替代方式。然而,HBA和CBA在特性、有效性、安全性和疗效方面的差异仍未确定。本研究比较了HBA和CBA之间的特性和预后差异。采用特定的检索策略在六个数据库(PubMed、Embase、Cochrane图书馆、Web of Science、ClinicalTrial.gov和medRxiv)中进行电子检索。根据特定标准选择符合条件的研究;截至2021年6月1日确定所有记录。计算平均差、比值比(OR)和95%置信区间(CI)以评估临床结果。使用预定义标准评估异质性和偏倚风险。最终纳入七项研究进行荟萃分析。与CBA相比,HBA组更多患者存在残余传导,且需要更高的再次消融发生率(TUA)[OR(95%CI)=2.76(2.02 - 3.77),P = 0.000]。HBA组TUA最常见的部位是左上肺静脉,而CBA组是右下肺静脉。在HBA手术期间,左右上肺静脉更有可能有更高的液体注射量。此外,HBA组的手术时间比CBA组长[加权平均差(95%CI)=14.24(4.39 - 24.09),P = 0.005]。CBA组患者发生房颤的风险可能增加,且接受更多抗心律失常药物治疗;然而,结果不显著。HBA和CBA是治疗房颤的实用消融方法。接受HBA的患者TUA发生率更高,手术时间更长。HBA和CBA中期随访期间的临床结果相当。https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=259487,标识符:CRD42021259487