Impact of Left Common Pulmonary Veins in the Contact-Force vs. Cryoballoon Atrial Fibrillation Ablation (CIRCA-DOSE) Study.

Ablation Atrial fibrillation Cryoballoon Left Common Pulmonary Veins Pulmonary venous anomaly Radiofrequency

Journal

Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology
ISSN: 1540-8167
Titre abrégé: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9010756

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
06 Jul 2020
Historique:
entrez: 7 7 2020
pubmed: 7 7 2020
medline: 7 7 2020
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

Concerns remain regarding the effectiveness of PVI using the fixed diameter non-compliant cryoballoon in the presence of a left common pulmonary vein (LCPV). We sought to evaluate the effectiveness of PVI performed by contact-force guided radiofrequency (CF-RF) versus second-generation cryoballoon-based ablation in patients with LCPV. We enrolled 346 patients with paroxysmal AF and randomized them to CF-RF or cryoballoon ablation. PV anatomy was not assessed prior to enrolment, and there were no exclusions based on PV anatomy. All patients received an implantable cardiac monitor. LCPV was observed in 13.6% of patients (47/346). Left atrial time and fluoroscopy time did not differ between those with and without LCPV (P=0.58 and P=0.06, respectively). Freedom from any atrial tachyarrhythmia at one year was observed in 46.8% with LCPV and 54.5% without LCPV (P=0.06). In those with LCPV the freedom from any atrial tachyarrhythmia did not differ between those randomized to CF-RF or cryoballoon ablation (HR for recurrence 1.19, 95% CI 0.53-2.65, P=0.69). In those with LCPV the AF burden was reduced to a similar extent with CF-RF and cryoballoon ablation (99.7% vs. 99.5%, respectively; P=0.97). In this randomized clinical trial, the presence of a LCPV was associated with a trend towards higher rates of arrhythmia recurrence following PVI. No significant difference in arrhythmia recurrence was observed between patients with LCPV randomized to cryoballoon ablation or contact-force guided RF ablation, suggesting that either ablation modality is suitable in this population. (Cryoballoon vs. Irrigated Radiofrequency Catheter Ablation [CIRCA-DOSE], NCT01913522) This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Concerns remain regarding the effectiveness of PVI using the fixed diameter non-compliant cryoballoon in the presence of a left common pulmonary vein (LCPV). We sought to evaluate the effectiveness of PVI performed by contact-force guided radiofrequency (CF-RF) versus second-generation cryoballoon-based ablation in patients with LCPV.
METHODS AND RESULTS RESULTS
We enrolled 346 patients with paroxysmal AF and randomized them to CF-RF or cryoballoon ablation. PV anatomy was not assessed prior to enrolment, and there were no exclusions based on PV anatomy. All patients received an implantable cardiac monitor. LCPV was observed in 13.6% of patients (47/346). Left atrial time and fluoroscopy time did not differ between those with and without LCPV (P=0.58 and P=0.06, respectively). Freedom from any atrial tachyarrhythmia at one year was observed in 46.8% with LCPV and 54.5% without LCPV (P=0.06). In those with LCPV the freedom from any atrial tachyarrhythmia did not differ between those randomized to CF-RF or cryoballoon ablation (HR for recurrence 1.19, 95% CI 0.53-2.65, P=0.69). In those with LCPV the AF burden was reduced to a similar extent with CF-RF and cryoballoon ablation (99.7% vs. 99.5%, respectively; P=0.97).
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
In this randomized clinical trial, the presence of a LCPV was associated with a trend towards higher rates of arrhythmia recurrence following PVI. No significant difference in arrhythmia recurrence was observed between patients with LCPV randomized to cryoballoon ablation or contact-force guided RF ablation, suggesting that either ablation modality is suitable in this population. (Cryoballoon vs. Irrigated Radiofrequency Catheter Ablation [CIRCA-DOSE], NCT01913522) This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32627264
doi: 10.1111/jce.14652
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Commentaires et corrections

Type : CommentIn

Informations de copyright

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

Jacob M Larsen (JM)

Department of Cardiology, Aalborg University Hospital, Denmark.
Heart Rhythm Services, Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Canada.

Marc W Deyell (MW)

Heart Rhythm Services, Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Canada.
Center for Cardiovascular Innovation, Vancouver, Canada.

Laurent Macle (L)

Montreal Heart Institute, Department of Medicine, Université de Montréal, Canada.

Jean Champagne (J)

Université Laval, Quebec, Canada.

Jean-Francois Sarrazin (JF)

Université Laval, Quebec, Canada.

Peter Leong-Sit (P)

Department of Medicine, University of Western Ontario, London, Canada.

Mariano Badra-Verdu (M)

Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Canada.

John Sapp (J)

Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre and Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada.

Paul Khairy (P)

Montreal Heart Institute, Department of Medicine, Université de Montréal, Canada.

Jason G Andrade (JG)

Heart Rhythm Services, Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Canada.
Center for Cardiovascular Innovation, Vancouver, Canada.
Montreal Heart Institute, Department of Medicine, Université de Montréal, Canada.

Classifications MeSH