Open AccessComparing between second‐generation cryoballoon vs open‐irrigated radiofrequency ablation in elderly patients: Acute and long‐term outcomes
Author(s) -
Chen Chaofeng,
Zhong Yigang,
Jin Chaolun,
Gao Xiaofei,
Liu Xiaohua,
Xu Yizhou
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
clinical cardiology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.263
H-Index - 72
eISSN - 1932-8737
pISSN - 0160-9289
DOI - 10.1002/clc.23335
Subject(s) - medicine , atrial fibrillation , ablation , pulmonary vein , cardiology , catheter ablation , radiofrequency ablation , refractory (planetary science) , surgery , physics , astrobiology
Abstract Background Limited comparative data are available regarding catheter ablation (CA) of atrial fibrillation (AF) using second‐generation cryoballoon (CB‐2) vs radiofrequency (RF) ablation in elderly patients (>75‐year‐old). Hypothesis CB‐2 ablation may demonstrate different outcomes compared with that using RF ablation for elderly patients with AF. Method Elderly patients with symptomatic drug‐refractory AF were included in the study. Pulmonary vein isolation was performed in all patients. Results A total of 324 elderly patients were included (RF: 176, CB‐2:148) from September 2016 to April 2019. The CB‐2 was associated with shorter procedure time and left atrial dwell time (112.9 ± 11.1 vs 135.1 ± 9.9 minutes, P < .001; 53.7 ± 8.9 vs 65.1.9 ± 9.0 minutes, P < .001), but marked fluoroscopy utilization (22.1 ± 3.3 vs 18.5 ± 3.6 minutes, P < .001). Complications occurred in 3.3% (CB‐2) and 6.2% (RF) of patients with no significant different ( P = .307). The length of stay after ablation was shorter, but the costs were higher in the CB‐2 group (1.94 vs 2.53 days, P < .001 and 91 132.6 ± 3723.5 vs 81 149.4 ± 6824.1 CNY, P < .001) compared to the RF group. Additionally, the rate of early recurrence of atrial arrhythmia was lower in the CB‐2 group (14.2 vs 23.3%, P = .047), but the long‐term success rate was similar between two groups. Conclusions CB‐2 is associated with shorter procedure time, left atrial dwell time, and length of stay after ablation, but its costs and fluoroscopy time are greater than the RF group. Moreover, the rate of complications and long‐term success are similar between the two groups.