Zhang Man-Li, Zhang Chao, Peng Jian-Yong, Xing Shu-Qiao, Guo Jian, Wei Chen-Long, Zhang Neng-Fang, Ma En, Chen Wen-Sheng
Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Xi'an Gaoxin Hospital, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China.
Department of Ultrasound, Xi'an Gaoxin Hospital, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China.
Front Cardiovasc Med. 2024 Aug 12;11:1364893. doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2024.1364893. eCollection 2024.
An increasing number of studies have shown that third (CB3)- and fourth-generation cryoballoons (CB4) have been used to treat various types of atrial fibrillation (AF), but previous research regarding the safety and efficacy of CB3 or CB4 ablation remains controversial. Therefore, a meta-analysis was performed to further evaluate the safety and efficacy of pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) using the CB3 and CB4 in the treatment of AF.
We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, China Science and Technology Journal Database, and Clinicaltrials.gov up to December 2023 for qualified trials and data extraction according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. All analyses were carried out using Review Manager 5.3 software.
The meta-analysis included 13 observational studies consisting of 3,281 subjects and did not include a randomized controlled trial. Overall analyses indicated that the CB3 significantly reduced total procedure time [weighted mean difference (WMD) = -8.69 min, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -15.45 to -1.94 min, I = 93%], increased the PVI recording [relative risk (RR) = 1.24, 95% CI = 1.03-1.49, I = 90%], and increased the mean nadir temperature of overall PVs (WMD = 2.80°C, 95% CI = 1.08-4.51°C, I = 89%) compared with the CB2. Moreover, the CB4 significantly reduced the total procedure time (WMD = -14.50 min, 95% CI = -20.89 to -8.11 min, I = 95%), reduced the fluoroscopy time (WMD = -2.37 min, 95% CI = -4.28 to -0.46 min, I = 95%), increased the PVI recording (RR = 1.40, 95% CI = 1.15-1.71, I = 90%) compared with the CB2. Time-to-isolation, the success rate of PVI, AF recurrence, and complications in the CB3 and CB4 were not significantly different compared with the CB2.
These findings demonstrated that the CB3 and CB4 tended to be more effective than the CB2 in the treatment of AF, with shorter procedure times, more PVI recording, and similar safety endpoints.
越来越多的研究表明,第三代(CB3)和第四代冷冻球囊(CB4)已被用于治疗各种类型的心房颤动(AF),但先前关于CB3或CB4消融安全性和有效性的研究仍存在争议。因此,进行了一项荟萃分析,以进一步评估使用CB3和CB4进行肺静脉隔离(PVI)治疗AF的安全性和有效性。
我们检索了截至2023年12月的PubMed、Cochrane图书馆、Web of Science、中国知网、万方、中国科技期刊数据库和Clinicaltrials.gov,以寻找符合纳入和排除标准的试验并进行数据提取。所有分析均使用Review Manager 5.3软件进行。
荟萃分析纳入了13项观察性研究,共3281名受试者,未包括随机对照试验。总体分析表明,与CB2相比,CB3显著缩短了总手术时间[加权平均差(WMD)=-8.69分钟,95%置信区间(CI)=-15.45至-1.94分钟,I=93%],增加了PVI记录[相对风险(RR)=1.24,95%CI=1.03-1.49,I=90%],并提高了整体肺静脉的平均最低温度(WMD=2.80°C,95%CI=1.08-4.51°C,I=89%)。此外,与CB2相比,CB4显著缩短了总手术时间(WMD=-14.50分钟,95%CI=-20.89至-8.11分钟),减少了透视时间(WMD=-2.37分钟,95%CI=-4.28至-0.46分钟,I=95%),增加了PVI记录(RR=1.40,95%CI=1.15-1.71,I=90%)。CB3和CB4在隔离时间、PVI成功率、AF复发率和并发症方面与CB2相比无显著差异。
这些发现表明,在治疗AF方面,CB3和CB4比CB2更有效,手术时间更短,PVI记录更多,且安全终点相似。