• Login
    View Item 
    •   UNTHSC Scholar
    • Research Appreciation Day
    • 2019
    • Abstracts
    • Cardiovascular
    • View Item
    •   UNTHSC Scholar
    • Research Appreciation Day
    • 2019
    • Abstracts
    • Cardiovascular
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Safety and Efficacy Analysis of Balloon Cryoablation vs Radiofrequency Ablation in Atrial Fibrillation: A Retrospective Analysis. (SECARA AFib TRIAL)

    Thumbnail
    Date
    2019-03-05
    Author
    Patel, Aman
    Khan, Ahsan
    Gupta, Karan
    Wilson, Kimberly
    Jipescu, Daniel
    Subramanian, Anand
    Thambidorai, Senthil
    Johnson, Douglas
    Timins, Aaron
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    Abstract
    Background: According to the ACC/AHA/HRS guidelines, Pulmonary-Vein Isolation has become the cornerstone approach in ablation for patients with medication refractory paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. (Class 1). Radiofrequency ablation is the most frequently employed technology followed by balloon cryoablation. According to multiple, smaller studies in recent past, both procedures have similar efficacy in terms of recurrence with little difference in complication rate. The FreezeAF trial, a 5-year observational study from 2011-2016 involving 4,073 patients, showed a better safety profile with radiofrequency ablation with lower rates of phrenic-nerve injuries in comparison to those of balloon cryoablation. However, some studies have shown that the rate of perforation was higher with thermal ablation. The landmark FIRE AND ICE Trial, a multicenter randomized controlled noninferiority trial of almost 800 patients published in 2016 in NEJM by Karl Heinz et al. showed a similar result in terms of efficacy and end safety result between the two. A systematic review of 7200 patients by Yi-He Chen et al. concluded that cryoablation has fewer rates of atrial fibrillation recurrence, shorter procedural duration and similar fluoroscopy times. Similar other studies are favoring the use of balloon cryoablation due to lower rate of hospitalizations, repeat ablation, and cardioversions. Methods: Retrospective single center chart review. Results: Cryoablation ( n -139 ) vs RF ( n -507) MACE - ( OR 2.62, p: 0.045, CI: 1.1 - 6.28) Non cardiac ADEs (OR 6.47, p: 0.0029, CI 2.3098 - 18.1395) Death: ( 1 vs 2, OR 1.84, p: 0.52, CI: 0.16-20.28) Efficacy: Persistent afib at discharge: ( OR 1.69, p: 0.08, CI: 0.85-3.07 ) Mean Contrast volume: (78 cc vs 4.48 cc, p Mean LA volume: (3.94 vs 4.59) Mean Fluoroscopy time: ( 31 vs 32 mins, p: 0.86) Conclusion: In our retrospective single-center study, patients who underwent cryoablation for pAF had a statistically significant higher incidence of MACE and noncardiac ADEs. There was no significant difference in mortality rates or primary efficacy.
    URI
    https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12503/27208
    Collections
    • Cardiovascular

    DSpace software copyright © 2002-2016  DuraSpace
    Contact Us | Send Feedback
    TDL
    Theme by 
    Atmire NV
     

     

    Browse

    All of UNTHSC ScholarCommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsThis CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjects

    My Account

    Login

    DSpace software copyright © 2002-2016  DuraSpace
    Contact Us | Send Feedback
    TDL
    Theme by 
    Atmire NV