Skip to main content
main-content

20.10.2018 | Reviews | Ausgabe 3/2019

Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology 3/2019

Comparison of efficacy and safety of laser balloon and cryoballoon ablation for atrial fibrillation—a meta-analysis

Zeitschrift:
Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology > Ausgabe 3/2019
Autoren:
Yue Wei, Ning Zhang, Qi Jin, Wenqi Pan, Yucai Xie, Kang Chen, Tianyou Ling, Changjian Lin, Yangyang Bao, Qingzhi Luo, Chaofan Xing, Liqun Wu
Wichtige Hinweise

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10840-018-0474-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Yue Wei and Ning Zhang contributed equally to this work.

Abstract

Background

Laser balloon (LB) and cryoballoon (CB) ablation are two balloon-based catheter ablation technologies used for atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation in recent years. However, the efficacy and the safety of LB ablation in comparison to CB ablation remained indeterminate. We sought to compare these two technologies by conducting meta-analysis of previous studies using both the CB and LB ablation systems for AF ablation.

Methods

We searched electronic scientific databases for studies of LB vs. CB ablation in AF patients. The procedural efficacy was assessed by the success of acute pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) and the 12-month recurrence of any atrial arrhythmia, and the safety was evaluated by the risk of procedure-related complications.

Results

A total of 595 participants (LB, n = 292 vs. CB, n = 303) from eight studies were included in this meta-analysis. Risk of acute PVI failure (risk ratio, RR 95% confidence interval [95% CI] = 2.55 [0.86–7.56], P = 0.09) and atrial arrhythmia recurrence in 12 months (RR [95% CI] = 0.91 [0.64–1.28], P = 0.59) were comparable between LB vs. CB ablation, and LB ablation tended to be more effective than CB ablation in paroxysmal AF patients (RR [95% CI] = 0.70 [0.47–1.03], P = 0.07). Risk of procedure-related complications was similar while LB ablation showed slightly higher risk without statistic significance (LB 13.9% vs. CB 9.3%, RR [95% CI] = 1.52 [0.88–2.64], P = 0.14). Compared with CB ablation, LB ablation led to longer procedure duration (weighted mean differences WMD [95% CI] =29.7 [15.8–43.7], P < 0.001) while similar fluoroscopy duration was observed between these two ablation devices (WMD [95% CI] = − 1.99[− 6.46–2.47], P = 0.38).

Conclusions

LB ablation has a trend toward higher procedural efficacy compared with CB ablation in paroxysmal AF patients. However, longer procedure duration and a statistically non-significant trend of more procedure-related complications were also observed in patients ablated by LB. Further larger comparative randomized trials are warranted to disclose the impact of LB compared with CB for ablation of AF.

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

★ PREMIUM-INHALT
e.Med Interdisziplinär

Mit e.Med Interdisziplinär erhalten Sie Zugang zu allen CME-Fortbildungen und Fachzeitschriften auf SpringerMedizin.de. Zusätzlich können Sie eine Zeitschrift Ihrer Wahl in gedruckter Form beziehen – ohne Aufpreis.

Weitere Produktempfehlungen anzeigen
Zusatzmaterial
Figure S1 (DOCX 15937 kb)
10840_2018_474_MOESM1_ESM.docx
Table S1 (DOCX 99 kb)
10840_2018_474_MOESM2_ESM.docx
Table S2 (DOCX 73 kb)
10840_2018_474_MOESM3_ESM.docx
Literatur
Über diesen Artikel

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2019

Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology 3/2019 Zur Ausgabe
  1. Sie können e.Med Innere Medizin 14 Tage kostenlos testen (keine Print-Zeitschrift enthalten). Der Test läuft automatisch und formlos aus. Es kann nur einmal getestet werden.

Neu im Fachgebiet Kardiologie

Mail Icon II Newsletter

Bestellen Sie unseren kostenlosen Newsletter Update Kardiologie und bleiben Sie gut informiert – ganz bequem per eMail.

Bildnachweise