Fehmi Keçe

Advances in Atrial Fibrillation Ablation Devices 45 2 Table 2. Continued. Author, year (study type) Number of patients, ablation device and protocol* PAF (%) Preventive techniques AAD free survival (1 year) (%) Procedural, ablation time and fluoroscopy time (min) Complications (%) Straube, 2014 (93) N=224 CB; N=308 CBA; CB 2x5 CBA 2x4 100 Temperature balloon Oesophageal temperature monitoring N.A. 185 vs. 175 (p=0.038) N.A. 34 vs. 29 (P<0.001) - Pericardial effusion/Cardiac tamponade 0.27 / 0.27 vs. none - Stroke/TIA 0.27 / 0.27 vs. none and transient amaurosis fugax none vs. 0.83 -Transient PNP 27.5vs.27.5 and permanent PNP 1.1 vs. 1.67 - Gastroparesis 0.27 vs. none. - Vascular access 1.10 vs. 0.83 Straube, 2016 (92) (multicenter observational) N=193 (86% CBA; n=164) N.A. 100 N.A. 71 112 (P<0.001) 32 (P<0.001) 16 - Cardiac tamponade 0.4 - Stroke 0.5 - Transient/Permanent PNP 1.6/ 0.5 - Vascular access 7.5 Van Belle, 2008(94) (observational) CB=141; N.A. 100 N.A. 48 (59 after second procedure) 207 N.A. 50 - Transient PNP 4 - Vascular access 4 - Other: haemoptysis 2 Vogt, 2013(95) (prospective observational) N=605 CB; CB 2x6 (LSPV 3x5) 96 N.A. 62 (24 (IQR 12-42) 156 N.A. 25 - Pericardial effusion/Cardiac tamponade 0.2 / 0.2 - Stroke 0.3 - Transient PNP 2.5 - Asymptomatic pulmonary vein stenosis 0.3 - Other: hemoptysis 1.7 Wasserlauf, 2015 (96) (retrospective) N=31 CB; N=70 CBA; 1x3-4 101 N.A. 60 193 (P<0.001) N.A. 46 (P<0.001) - Transient PNP 1 - Vascular access 1 - Other: urinary tract infections 3 (only observational/retrospective studies and randomized clinical trials with n > 100 for are included) in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, showing the use of different ablation devices, outcomes, the use of preventive techniques and complication rates.AAD= anti-arrhythmic drugs, CB =cryoballoon (first-generation), CBA=cryoballoon advanced (second-generation), DC=dormant conduction, IQR=interquartile range, PAF=paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, PNP=phrenic nerve pacing and TIA=Transient ischemic attack. P-values indicated significant differences between catheters from the same technology (table 2) or between catheters from different technologies (table 2 vs. table 1). *protocol (number of freeze cycles x duration in minutes).