Comparative efficacy and safety of catheter ablation interventions for atrial fibrillation: comprehensive network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Pulmonary vein isolation by visually guided laser balloon ablation: single-center 5-year follow-up results

BACKGROUND

Visually guided laser balloon (VGLB) ablation is a balloon-based treatment for atrial fibrillation (AF) that uses a titratable laser energy source to perform pulmonary vein isolation (PVI), allowing for real-time visualization of target tissue and ablation lesions through an endoscopic camera. Few long-term data on this technique are currently available. This report presents acute efficacy, procedural data, complication rates, and long-term AF-free survival up to 5 years post-ablation.

METHODS

In this single-center, retrospective, observational report, 152 patients (72.4% male, mean age 60.6 ± 9.7 years, 62.5% paroxysmal AF, 598 pulmonary veins in total) treated with the first-generation VGLB system between 2014 and 2016 were included for analysis. AF ablation consisted of PVI only.

RESULTS

Acute PVI was achieved in 98.2% of veins, with first-pass isolation in 92.5%. Procedure duration of 129 min [IQR 113-150], fluoroscopy time of 15 min [IQR 11-20], and dose area product of 5016 mGy·cm2 [IQR 3603-8711] were recorded. During a median follow-up of 51 months [IQR 45-57], 74.3% of patients remained free of AF (78.8% for paroxysmal and 65.3% for persistent AF, p = 0.108). Freedom of AF at 1, 2, 3, and 4 years follow-up was 88.2%, 82.2%, 78.9%, and 74.8%, respectively. PV reconnections were identified in only 46.9% of redo procedures. The median number of PV reconnections during redo procedures was 0 [IQR 0-2]. Anti-arrhythmic drug use was significantly reduced after ablation (p < 0.001). The most commonly reported complications were minor vascular complications (4.6%) and transient phrenic nerve paralysis (3.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

First-generation VGLB ablation demonstrated high acute isolation rates, reasonable procedure times and low complication rates. Long-term freedom from AF was 78.8% for paroxysmal AF and 65.3% for persistent AF, performing PVI only.

Efficacy and safety of visually guided laser balloon versus cryoballoon ablation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Newly developed catheter ablation (CA) techniques, such as laser balloon ablation (LBA) and cryoballoon ablation (CBA), have been introduced in recent years and emerged as valuable alternatives to conventional radiofrequency CA strategies for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF) patients. However, evidence comparing LBA and CBA remain controversial. Thus, we conducted this meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety between these two techniques.

Methods

Scientific databases (PubMed, Embase) and relevant websites (the Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov) were systematically searched from inception to March 2023. The primary outcomes of interest were the AF recurrence and the procedure-related complications. Secondary outcomes included procedural time, fluoroscopy time, and left atrial (LA) dwell time.

Results

Seven clinical trials with a total of 637 patients were finally enrolled. No significant differences were found between LBA and CBA in terms of AF recurrence [16.3% vs. 22.7%, odds ratio (OR) = 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.42-1.05, p = 0.078] or total procedural-related complications (8.4% vs. 6.4%, OR = 1.33, 95% CI: 0.71-2.51, p = 0.371). LBA had a significantly longer procedural time [weighted mean difference (WMD) = 38.03 min, 95% CI: 13.48-62.58 min, p = 0.002] and LA dwell time (WMD = 46.67 min, 95% CI: 14.63-78.72 min, p = 0.004) than CBA, but tended to have shorter fluoroscopy time.

Conclusions

LBA and CBA treatment have comparable efficacy and safety for PAF patients. LBA was associated with longer procedural and LA dwell times compared with CBA. Further large-scale studies are warranted to compare these two techniques with the newest generations.Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=426513, identifier (CRD42023426513).

Outcomes of catheter ablation versus antiarrhythmic therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Recent data have shown an advantage of rhythm control over rate control for the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF). Nevertheless, the data regarding efficacy of catheter ablation (CA) compared with antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) in patients with AF is lacking. Therefore, we sought to evaluate recurrence of arrhythmia, all-cause mortality, cardiovascular deaths, stroke/TIA, and all-cause readmissions of CA compared with AAD in patients with AF.

METHODS

Systematically searched through PubMed, Google Scholar, EMBASE, and Cochrane for randomized control trials that compared CA and AAD in atrial fibrillation patients. Review Manager 5.4 and OpenMetaAnalyst were used to analyze the data. Data was pooled for the outcomes using random-effect models (DerSimonian and Laird) and reported as pooled odds ratio (OR).

RESULTS

A total of 4822 patients were included. The CA group had 2417 patients while the AAD group included 2405 patients. Pooled data demonstrated that the CA arm had a statistically significant decrease in risk for recurrence of arrhythmia as compared to AAD (OR 0.25; [95% CI, 0.18-0.36]; p < 0.001). All-cause readmission was statistically significantly lower in CA as compared to AAD (OR 0.33; [95%CI, 0.17-0.63]; p < 0.001). For other secondary outcomes, there was no statistically significant difference between CA and AAD with regard to all-cause mortality (OR 0.75; [95% CI, 0.55-1.03]), cardiovascular death (OR 0.76; [95% CI, 0.22-2.54]), bleeding (OR 1.09, [95% CI 0.74, 1.61]), or stroke/TIA outcome (OR 0.90, [95% CI, 0.59-1.37]).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study of pooled data from 16 RCTs, CA utilization for atrial fibrillation had improved freedom from arrhythmia as well as reduced all-cause readmission compared with AAD.

Second-generation cryoballoon versus contact force radiofrequency ablation for atrial fibrillation: an updated meta-analysis of evidence from randomized controlled trials

Catheter ablation has been recommended for patients with symptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF), with pulmonary vein isolation being the cornerstone of the ablation procedure. Newly developed technologies, such as cryoballoon ablation with a second-generation cryoballoon (CB2) and the contact force radiofrequency (CF-RF) ablation, have been introduced in recent years to overcome the shortcomings of the widely used RF ablation approach. However, high-quality results comparing CB2 and CF-RF remain controversial. Thus, we conducted this meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety between CB2 and CF-RF using evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Databases including Embase, PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were systematically searched from their date of inception to January 2021. Only RCTs that met the inclusion criteria were included for analysis. The primary outcome of interest was freedom from atrial tachyarrhythmia (AT) during follow-up. Secondary outcomes included procedure-related complications, procedure time and fluoroscopy time. Six RCTs with a total of 987 patients were finally enrolled. No significant differences were found between CB2 and CF-RF in terms of freedom from AT (relative risk [RR] = 1.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.92-1.14, p = 0.616) or total procedural-related complications (RR = 1.25, 95% CI 0.69-2.27, p = 0.457). CB2 treatment was associated with a significantly higher risk of phrenic nerve palsy (PNP) than CF-RF (RR = 4.93, 95% CI 1.12-21.73, p = 0.035). The occurrences of pericardial effusion/tamponade and vascular complications were comparable between the CB2 and CF-RF treatments (RR = 0.41, p = 0.398; RR = 0.82, p = 0.632). In addition, CB2 treatment had a significantly shorter procedure time than CF-RF (weighted mean difference [WMD] = - 20.75 min, 95% CI - 25.44 ~ - 16.05 min, P < 0.001), whereas no difference was found in terms of fluoroscopy time (WMD = 4.63 min, p = 0.179). CB2 and CF-RF treatment are comparable for AF patients regarding freedom from AT and procedure-related complications. Compared to CF-RF, CB2 treatment was associated with a shorter procedure time but a higher incidence of PNP. Further large-scale studies are warranted to compare these two techniques and provide an up-to-date recommendation.