Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

What is the real recurrence rate after cryoballoon-based pulmonary vein isolation? Lessons from rhythm follow-up based on implanted cardiac devices with continuous atrial monitoring.

BACKGROUND: Second-generation cryoballoon (CB2)-based pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) has demonstrated encouraging clinical results for the treatment of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF) and persistent AF. However, rhythm follow-up after PVI is mainly based on Holter electrocardiography of limited duration.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the real AF burden following CB2-based PVI in patients with implanted cardiac devices.

METHODS: A total of 670 consecutive patients underwent CB2-based PVI at 3 electrophysiology centers. In 66 patients (9.9%), an implantable cardiac device with continuous monitor function was independently implanted before the procedure (device group). This patient cohort was compared to propensity score-matched patients without cardiac devices (n = 66; control group).

RESULTS: A total of 254 of 258 PVs (98.4%0 in the device group were successfully isolated using only CB2. Postprocedural device interrogation found no device or lead malfunction related to the procedure. Periprocedural complications were registered in 7 of 66 patients (11%) in the device group and in 6 of 66 patients (9%) in the control group (P = .770). Phrenic nerve palsy occurred in 6 of 66 patients (9%) in the device group) and in 2 of 66 patients (3%) in the control group) (P = .274). Clinical success in terms of freedom from AF recurrence after a 1-year follow-up period was 63.8% (95% confidence interval 53-77) in the device group and 77.3% (95% confidence interval 68-88) in the control group (P = .038). In the device group, AF/AT burden decreased from 41.8% ± 35.0% before the procedure to 10.2% ± 22.4% after 1 year (P <.0001).

CONCLUSION: CB2-PVI seems safe and feasible in patients with an implanted cardiac device. A significantly higher AF/AT burden was seen in patients with an implanted cardiac device compared to a control group.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app