Technical and procedural comparison of two different cryoballoon ablation systems in patients with atrial fibrillation

• Published in: Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology
• Main Authors: Knecht, Sven, Sticherling, Christian, Roten, Laurent, Badertscher, Patrick, Chollet, Laurève, Küffer, Thomas, Spies, Florian, Madaffari, Antonio, Mühl, Aline, Baldinger, Samuel H., Servatius, Helge, Osswald, Stefan, Reichlin, Tobias, Kühne, Michael
• Other Authors: Universität Basel
• Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
• Language: English
• Published: Springer Science and Business Media LLC 2021
• Subjects: Physiology (medical); Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine; Ice cap
• Online Access: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10840-021-01035-6; https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10840-021-01035-6.pdf; https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10840-021-01035-6/fulltext.html

Abstract Purpose The aim was to report procedural and technical differences of a novel cryoballoon (NCB) ablation catheter for pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) compared to the standard cryoballoon (SCB) catheter. Methods Consecutive patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) undergoing PVI using the NCB and the SCB were included. Procedural parameters, technical differences, acute efficacy, and safety are reported. Results Eighty patients (age 66 ± 10 years, ejection fraction 57 ± 10%, left atrial volume index 40 ± 6 ml/m 2 ) were studied. With the NCB, 156 of 158 PVs (99%) were isolated compared to isolation of 159 of 159 PVs (100%) with the SCB. The median number of freezes in the NCB and the SCB group was 6 (IQR 5–8) and 5 (IQR 4–7), respectively ( p = 0.051), with 73% and 71% of the PVs isolated with a single freeze, respectively. Nadir temperature and temperature at isolation were − 59 ± 6 °C and − 45 ± 17 °C in the NCB group and − 46 ± 7 °C and − 32 ± 23 °C in the SCB group, respectively (both p < 0.001) with no difference in time to isolation (TTI). Procedural differences were observed for the total procedure time (84 ± 29 min in the NCB group and 65 ± 17 min in the SCB group, p = 0.003). There was a peri-procedural stroke in one patient in the NCB group. Differences in catheter design were observed that may account for the differences in temperature recordings and ice cap formation. Conclusions Acute efficacy and TTI were similar with the NCB compared to the SCB. Measured temperatures were lower with the NCB, most likely due to differences in catheter design.