Sultan Arian, Kreutzer Sven, Wörmann Jonas, Lüker Jakob, Ackmann Jana, Schipper Jan-Hendrik, van den Bruck Jan, Filipovic Karlo, Scheurlen Cornelia, Rosenberger Kerstin, Steven Daniel
St. Georg Heart Centre Hamburg, Asklepios Clinic Hamburg, Lohmühlenstrasse 5, 20099 Hamburg, Germany.
Department of Electrophysiology, Heart Centre University Hospital Cologne, Kerpener Strasse 62, Cologne 50937, Germany.
Europace. 2025 May 7;27(5). doi: 10.1093/europace/euaf066.
Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) is a first-line treatment option for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF). Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) or cryoballoon ablation (CBA) are commonly used modalities. Recent studies demonstrated the superiority and potential benefits of very high-power short-duration (vHPSD) RFA using 70 W compared to conventional RFA (<50 W). Prospective randomized data comparing vHPSD RFA with 70 W with the frequently used CBA in the setting of PAF are lacking.
We conducted a randomized non-inferiority trial involving 170 patients undergoing de novo PVI for PAF. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to undergo vHPSD RFA or to receive CBA. The composite primary endpoint consisted of (i) any atrial arrhythmia, (ii) new antiarrhythmic drug (AAD) onset, and (iii) re-ablation during 1 year after index procedure. The non-inferiority margin was predefined as a 10% lower 1-year event-free survival rate in vHPSD compared to CBA (delta = -0.1). A total of 170 patients with symptomatic PAF were enrolled and assigned to undergo de novo PVI, with 84 receiving vHPSD and 86 undergoing CBA. The overall study population had a mean age of 65 ± 11 years and included 50.6% women. For vHPSD PVI a 70 W/7 s anterior and 70 W/5 s posterior protocol including 3D mapping was used. Cryoballoon ablation was performed as usual. Successful PVI was achieved in all patients. Overall procedure time for vHPSD was significantly longer (81.1 ± 20.0 vs. 67.7 ± 17.2 min; P < 0.001). However, the mere ablation time was comparable (39.3 ± 15.5 vs. 36.7 ± 14.5 min; P = 0.285). Fluoroscopy time and amount of contrast medium were significantly lower for vHPSD PVI (9.2 ± 3.6 vs. 10.5 ± 4.3 min; P = 0.031; 15.5 ± 5.8 vs. 43.1 ± 30.0 mL; P < 0.001). Complication rates were comparable between groups. One pulmonary vein stenosis occurred after vHPSD. Three pericardial effusions and two transient ischaemic attack were reported after CBA. After a median follow-up of 367 days, 73.8% [n = 62, 95% confidence interval (CI): 63.1-82.8%] of patients in the vHPSD PVI group and 81.4% (n = 70, 95% CI: 71.6-89.0%) in the CBA group remained free of any event. Non-inferiority of vHPSD PVI compared to CBA PVI could not be demonstrated, with a difference of -0.076 [95% CI: (-0.201 to 0.049)] in event-free survival rates off AADs, as the 95% CI includes the delta of -0.1.
In this randomized non-inferiority trial comparing vHPSD RFA to CBA for PVI in patients with PAF, non-inferiority of vHPSD RFA could not be shown. Both methods showed comparable safety outcome with a shorter procedure time for CBA.
肺静脉隔离(PVI)是阵发性心房颤动(PAF)的一线治疗选择。射频消融(RFA)或冷冻球囊消融(CBA)是常用的治疗方式。最近的研究表明,与传统RFA(<50W)相比,使用70W的超高功率短程(vHPSD)RFA具有优越性和潜在益处。缺乏在PAF背景下比较70W的vHPSD RFA与常用CBA的前瞻性随机数据。
我们进行了一项随机非劣效性试验,纳入170例因PAF接受初次PVI的患者。患者按1:1比例随机分配接受vHPSD RFA或CBA。复合主要终点包括:(i)任何房性心律失常,(ii)新抗心律失常药物(AAD)启用,以及(iii)索引手术后1年内再次消融。非劣效性界值预先定义为vHPSD组1年无事件生存率比CBA组低10%(差值=-0.1)。共纳入170例有症状PAF患者并分配接受初次PVI,84例接受vHPSD,86例接受CBA。总体研究人群平均年龄为65±11岁,女性占50.6%。对于vHPSD PVI,采用包括三维标测的70W/7s前壁和70W/5s后壁方案。冷冻球囊消融按常规进行。所有患者均成功完成PVI。vHPSD的总手术时间显著更长(81.1±20.0对67.7±17.2分钟;P<0.001)。然而,单纯消融时间相当(39.3±15.5对36.7±14.5分钟;P=0.285)。vHPSD PVI的透视时间和造影剂用量显著更低(9.2±3.6对10.5±4.3分钟;P=0.031;15.5±5.8对43.1±30.0毫升;P<0.001)。两组并发症发生率相当。vHPSD后发生1例肺静脉狭窄。CBA后报告3例心包积液和2例短暂性脑缺血发作。中位随访367天后,vHPSD PVI组73.8%[n=62,95%置信区间(CI):63.1-82.8%]的患者和CBA组81.4%(n=70,95%CI:71.6-89.0%)的患者无任何事件。vHPSD PVI与CBA PVI相比的非劣效性未得到证实,AADs无事件生存率差值为-0.076[95%CI:(-0.201至0.049)],因为95%CI包含-0.1的差值。
在这项比较vHPSD RFA与CBA用于PAF患者PVI的随机非劣效性试验中,未显示vHPSD RFA的非劣效性。两种方法安全性结果相当,CBA手术时间更短。