Rapid pulmonary vein isolation utilizing the third-generation laserballoon - The PhoeniX registry.
Atrial fibrillation
Catheter ablation
Endoscopic ablation
Laser balloon
Pulmonary vein isolation
Journal
International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature
ISSN: 2352-9067
Titre abrégé: Int J Cardiol Heart Vasc
Pays: Ireland
ID NLM: 101649525
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Aug 2020
Aug 2020
Historique:
received:
04
05
2020
revised:
28
05
2020
accepted:
19
06
2020
entrez:
10
7
2020
pubmed:
10
7
2020
medline:
10
7
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Balloon-based ablation systems for pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) are providing procedural safety and efficacy as well as favourable clinical outcome. Although second-generation laser balloon (LB2) based PVI has been shown safety and efficacy relatively long procedural duration was a strong limitation. The third-generation laser balloon (LB3) offers and automized ablation for rapid PVI. We determined safety, efficacy and procedural characteristics of this new promising ablation system. A total of 15 consecutive patients were prospectively enrolled. All patients underwent PVI using the LB3. A total 59/59 PVs (100%) were successfully isolated. Procedural data was compared to the last 15 consecutive patients treated by the LB2. The median procedure time significantly declined from LB2 (91 (86, 105) min) to LB3 (77 (68, 87) min), p < 0.001. Similarly, the median left atrial dwelling time significantly decreased from LB2 (72 (62, 84) min) to LB3 (45 (38, 52) min), p < 0.0001. The total laser time decreased from LB2 (1920 (1765, 2193) sec) to LB3 (1077 (896, 1165) sec), p < 0.00001. A pure single shot PVI was performed in 18/59 PVs (31%). For major adverse events no differences were detected between the groups (LB2 1/15 (6.7%) and LB3 1/15 (6.7%), p = 0.999). The LB3 was safe and effective for PVI. Procedure time, LA dwelling time and total laser time significantly decreased compared to LB2.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Balloon-based ablation systems for pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) are providing procedural safety and efficacy as well as favourable clinical outcome. Although second-generation laser balloon (LB2) based PVI has been shown safety and efficacy relatively long procedural duration was a strong limitation. The third-generation laser balloon (LB3) offers and automized ablation for rapid PVI. We determined safety, efficacy and procedural characteristics of this new promising ablation system.
METHODS AND RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of 15 consecutive patients were prospectively enrolled. All patients underwent PVI using the LB3. A total 59/59 PVs (100%) were successfully isolated. Procedural data was compared to the last 15 consecutive patients treated by the LB2. The median procedure time significantly declined from LB2 (91 (86, 105) min) to LB3 (77 (68, 87) min), p < 0.001. Similarly, the median left atrial dwelling time significantly decreased from LB2 (72 (62, 84) min) to LB3 (45 (38, 52) min), p < 0.0001. The total laser time decreased from LB2 (1920 (1765, 2193) sec) to LB3 (1077 (896, 1165) sec), p < 0.00001. A pure single shot PVI was performed in 18/59 PVs (31%). For major adverse events no differences were detected between the groups (LB2 1/15 (6.7%) and LB3 1/15 (6.7%), p = 0.999).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The LB3 was safe and effective for PVI. Procedure time, LA dwelling time and total laser time significantly decreased compared to LB2.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32642555
doi: 10.1016/j.ijcha.2020.100576
pii: S2352-9067(20)30274-8
pii: 100576
pmc: PMC7334810
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
100576Informations de copyright
© 2020 The Author(s).
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
CHH received travel grants and research grants by Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Claret Medical, SentreHeart, Biosense Webster and Cardiofocus and Speaker’s Honoraria from Biosense Webster, Cardiofocus and Boston Scientific. RRT received travel grants from St. Jude Medical, Topera, Biosense Webster, Daiichi Sankyo, SentreHeart and Speaker’s Bureau Honoraria from Biosense Webster, Biotronik, Pfizer, Topera, Bristol-Myers Squibb; Bayer, Sano Aventis and research grants by Cardiofocus. CE received travel grants and educational grants by Medtronic. All other authors have no relevant disclosures. KHK received travel grants and research grants from Biosense Webster, Stereotaxis, Prorhythm, Medtronic, Edwards, Cryocath, and is a consultant to St. Jude Medical, Biosense Webster, Prorhythm, and Stereotaxis. He received speaker's honoraria from Medtronic.
Références
Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2010 Oct;3(5):481-8
pubmed: 20657031
Heart Rhythm. 2011 Jul;8(7):988-93
pubmed: 21354329
Circ J. 2019 Nov 25;83(12):2443-2451
pubmed: 31708555
Circ J. 2019 Jul 25;83(8):1653-1659
pubmed: 31257357
Circ J. 2020 May 25;84(6):902-910
pubmed: 32307357
Circ J. 2017 Jun 23;81(7):974-980
pubmed: 28344202
Heart Rhythm. 2017 Apr;14(4):495-500
pubmed: 27956248
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2014 Dec;25(12):1293-8
pubmed: 25065945
Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2018 Feb;11(2):e005250
pubmed: 29449353
N Engl J Med. 2016 Jun 9;374(23):2235-45
pubmed: 27042964
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2012 Jun;23(6):576-82
pubmed: 22229948
Heart Rhythm. 2012 Sep;9(9):1380-5
pubmed: 22472520
Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2013 Jun;6(3):467-72
pubmed: 23559674
Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2017 Dec;10(12):
pubmed: 29217521
Europace. 2013 May;15(5):685-9
pubmed: 23129544
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015 Sep 22;66(12):1350-60
pubmed: 26383722
Heart Rhythm. 2012 Jun;9(6):919-25
pubmed: 22293143
Eur Heart J. 2016 Oct 07;37(38):2858-2865
pubmed: 27381589
Clin Res Cardiol. 2018 Jul;107(7):570-577
pubmed: 29492703
Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2019 Jul;42(7):837-845
pubmed: 30969431