Procedural Safety and Efficacy for Pulmonary Vein Isolation with the Novel Polarx™ Cryoablation System: A Propensity Score Matched Comparison with the Arctic Front™ Cryoballoon in the Setting of Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation

BACKGROUND: The novel Polarx™ cryoablation system is currently being studied for atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation. To the best of our knowledge, no study comparing the novel cryoablation system with the standard Arctic Front™ cryoballoon is available in today’s literature. This study aims to compar...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of Atrial Fibrillation
Main Authors: Mojica, Joerelle, Lipartiti, Felicia, Al Housari, Maysam, Bala, Gezim, Kazawa, Shuichiro, Miraglia, Vincenzo, Monaco, Cinzia, Overeinder, Ingrid, Strazdas, Antanas, Ramak, Robbert, Paparella, Gaetano, Sieira, Juan, Capulzini, Lucio, Sorgente, Antonio, Stroker, Erwin, Brugada, Pedro, De Asmundis, Carlo, Chierchia, Gian-Battista
Format: Text
Language:English
Published: Cardiofront, Inc 2021
Subjects:
Original Research
Arctic
Online Access:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8691321/
https://doi.org/10.4022/jafib.20200455
Description
Summary:BACKGROUND: The novel Polarx™ cryoablation system is currently being studied for atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation. To the best of our knowledge, no study comparing the novel cryoablation system with the standard Arctic Front™ cryoballoon is available in today’s literature. This study aims to compare Polarx™ and Arctic Front™ cryoballoon in terms of safety and efficacy. METHODS: From a total cohort of 202 patients who underwent pulmonary vein (PV) isolation for paroxysmal AF through cryoablation, a population of 30 patients who used Polarx™ were compared with 30 propensity-score matched patients who used Arctic Front™. RESULTS: Pulmonary vein occlusion and electrical isolation were achieved in all (100%) veins with a mean number of 1.09 ± 0.3 occlusion per vein using Polarx™ and 1.19 ± 0.5 occlusion per vein using Arctic Front™ (p = 0.6). Shorter procedure and fluoroscopy time were observed with Polarx™ group (60.5 ± 14.23 vs 73.43 ± 13.26 mins, p = 0.001; 12.83 ± 6.03 vs 17.23 ± 7.17 mins, p = 0.01, respectively). Lower cumulative freeze duration per vein was also observed with Polarx™ (203.38 ± 72.03 vs 224.9 ± 79.35 mins, p = 0.02). There was no significant difference in isolation time between the two groups (34.47 ± 21.23 vs 34.18 ± 26.79 secs, p = 0.9). CONCLUSIONS: The novel Polarx™ cryoablation system showed similar efficacy in vein occlusion and isolation and safety profile when compared to Arctic Front™ cryoablation system. Procedure time, fluoroscopy time, and cumulative freeze duration were significantly lower with Polarx™ cryoablation system.

Similar Items