open access

Vol 76, No 7 (2018)
Original articles
Published online: 2018-03-07
Submitted: 2017-09-18
Accepted: 2018-03-02
Get Citation

Cryoballoon ablation of atrial fibrillation in patients with advanced systolic heart failure and cardiac implantable electronic devices

Patrycja Pruszkowska, Radosław Lenarczyk, Jakub Gumprecht, Ewa Jedrzejczyk-Patej, Michał Mazurek, Oskar Kowalski, Adam Sokal, Tomasz Podolecki, Stanisław Morawski, Witold Streb, Katarzyna Mitręga, Zbigniew Kalarus
DOI: 10.5603/KP.a2018.0068
·
Pubmed: 29528482
·
Kardiol Pol 2018;76(7):1081-1088.

open access

Vol 76, No 7 (2018)
Original articles
Published online: 2018-03-07
Submitted: 2017-09-18
Accepted: 2018-03-02

Abstract

Background: Pulmonary vein isolation with cryoballoon catheter ablation (CCB) is an effective method of treatment in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), but in patients with heart failure (HF) the role of CCB remains unknown.

Aim: The aim of the study was to assess the feasibility, effectiveness, and safety of CCB in patients with HF and cardiac im­plantable electronic devices (CIEDs), the impact of the procedure on symptoms, and echocardiographic parameters.

Methods: Thirty consecutive HF patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 40% and CIED, referred for CCB of AF, were included. Procedural parameters were compared to a group of 59 consecutive patients without cardiac diseases referred for CCB (control group).

Results: The number of veins ablated per patient was smaller and application was performed less frequently in the right inferior pulmonary vein in the HF group compared with the control group (66.7% vs. 88.1%; p = 0.01, respectively). In two (6.7%) patients from the HF group and in five (8.5%) from the control group procedure-related complications occurred (p = 0.76). After six months 21 HF patients (70%), after one year 13 (43%), and after 625 days only three (10%) were free from arrhythmia. AF burden was significantly reduced after six months compared to the pre-ablation period (18.5% vs. 52.9%; p = 0.001). New York Heart Association and European Heart Rhythm Association classes were both significantly (p < 0.001) reduced and LVEF was higher after six months in the HF patients.

Conclusions: Safety and feasibility of CCB for AF in HF patients with CIED are comparable to subjects with structurally nor­mal heart; however, stable positioning of the balloon in the right inferior pulmonary vein may be more challenging. Although late recurrences are common, ablation reduces arrhythmia burden and leads to a long-term improvement of symptoms and echocardiographic indices.

Abstract

Background: Pulmonary vein isolation with cryoballoon catheter ablation (CCB) is an effective method of treatment in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), but in patients with heart failure (HF) the role of CCB remains unknown.

Aim: The aim of the study was to assess the feasibility, effectiveness, and safety of CCB in patients with HF and cardiac im­plantable electronic devices (CIEDs), the impact of the procedure on symptoms, and echocardiographic parameters.

Methods: Thirty consecutive HF patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 40% and CIED, referred for CCB of AF, were included. Procedural parameters were compared to a group of 59 consecutive patients without cardiac diseases referred for CCB (control group).

Results: The number of veins ablated per patient was smaller and application was performed less frequently in the right inferior pulmonary vein in the HF group compared with the control group (66.7% vs. 88.1%; p = 0.01, respectively). In two (6.7%) patients from the HF group and in five (8.5%) from the control group procedure-related complications occurred (p = 0.76). After six months 21 HF patients (70%), after one year 13 (43%), and after 625 days only three (10%) were free from arrhythmia. AF burden was significantly reduced after six months compared to the pre-ablation period (18.5% vs. 52.9%; p = 0.001). New York Heart Association and European Heart Rhythm Association classes were both significantly (p < 0.001) reduced and LVEF was higher after six months in the HF patients.

Conclusions: Safety and feasibility of CCB for AF in HF patients with CIED are comparable to subjects with structurally nor­mal heart; however, stable positioning of the balloon in the right inferior pulmonary vein may be more challenging. Although late recurrences are common, ablation reduces arrhythmia burden and leads to a long-term improvement of symptoms and echocardiographic indices.

Get Citation

Keywords

atrial fibrillation, heart failure, pulmonary vein isolation, cryoballoon catheter ablation, cardiac implantable electronic device

About this article
Title

Cryoballoon ablation of atrial fibrillation in patients with advanced systolic heart failure and cardiac implantable electronic devices

Journal

Kardiologia Polska (Polish Heart Journal)

Issue

Vol 76, No 7 (2018)

Pages

1081-1088

Published online

2018-03-07

DOI

10.5603/KP.a2018.0068

Pubmed

29528482

Bibliographic record

Kardiol Pol 2018;76(7):1081-1088.

Keywords

atrial fibrillation
heart failure
pulmonary vein isolation
cryoballoon catheter ablation
cardiac implantable electronic device

Authors

Patrycja Pruszkowska
Radosław Lenarczyk
Jakub Gumprecht
Ewa Jedrzejczyk-Patej
Michał Mazurek
Oskar Kowalski
Adam Sokal
Tomasz Podolecki
Stanisław Morawski
Witold Streb
Katarzyna Mitręga
Zbigniew Kalarus

References (18)
  1. Taylor CJ, Roalfe AK, Iles R, et al. Ten-year prognosis of heart failure in the community: follow-up data from the Echocardiographic Heart of England Screening (ECHOES) study. Eur J Heart Fail. 2012; 14(2): 176–184.
  2. Wang TJ, Larson MG, Levy D, et al. Temporal relations of atrial fibrillation and congestive heart failure and their joint influence on mortality: the Framingham Heart Study. Circulation. 2003; 107(23): 2920–2925.
  3. Ozierański K, Kapłon-Cieślicka A, Peller M, et al. Clinical characteristics and predictors of one-year outcome of heart failure patients with atrial fibrillation compared to heart failure patients in sinus rhythm. Kardiol Pol. 2016; 74(3): 251–261.
  4. Kirchhof P, Benussi S, Kotecha D, et al. 2016 ESC Guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation developed in collaboration with EACTS. Europace. 2016; 18(11): 1609–1678.
  5. Pandya B, Sheikh A, Spagnola J, et al. Safety and efficacy of second-generation versus first-generation cryoballoons for treatment of atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis of current evidence. J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2016; 45(1): 49–56.
  6. Spragg DD, Dalal D, Cheema A, et al. Complications of catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation: incidence and predictors. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2008; 19(6): 627–631.
  7. Anselmino M, Matta M, D'Ascenzo F, et al. Catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2014; 7(6): 1011–1018.
  8. Cappato R, Calkins H, Chen SA, et al. Updated worldwide survey on the methods, efficacy, and safety of catheter ablation for human atrial fibrillation. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2010; 3(1): 32–38.
  9. Dagres N, Hindricks G, Kottkamp H, et al. Complications of atrial fibrillation ablation in a high-volume center in 1,000 procedures: still cause for concern? J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2009; 20(9): 1014–1019.
  10. Lenarczyk R, Jędrzejczyk-Patej E, Szulik M, et al. Atrial fibrillation in cardiac resynchronization recipients with and without prior arrhythmic history. How much of arrhythmia is too much? Cardiol J. 2015; 22(3): 267–275.
  11. Lodziński P, Kiliszek M, Koźluk E, et al. Does a blanking period after pulmonary vein isolation impact long-term results? Results after 55 months of follow-up. Cardiol J. 2014; 21(4): 384–391.
  12. Hunter RJ, Berriman TJ, Diab I, et al. A randomized controlled trial of catheter ablation versus medical treatment of atrial fibrillation in heart failure (the CAMTAF trial). Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2014; 7(1): 31–38.
  13. Bertaglia E, Senatore G, De Michieli L, et al. Twelve-year follow-up of catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation: A prospective, multicenter, randomized study. Heart Rhythm. 2017; 14(4): 486–492.
  14. Jędrzejczyk-Patej E, Lenarczyk R, Mazurek M, et al. Can we rely on machines? Device-detected atrial high rates correspond well with atrial arrhythmias in cardiac resynchronization recipients. Europace. 2016; 18(3): 436–444.
  15. Wilton SB, Fundytus A, Ghali WA, et al. Meta-analysis of the effectiveness and safety of catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation in patients with versus without left ventricular systolic dysfunction. Am J Cardiol. 2010; 106(9): 1284–1291.
  16. Hsu LF, Jaïs P, Sanders P, et al. Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation in congestive heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2004; 351(23): 2373–2383.
  17. Trulock KM, Narayan SM, Piccini JP. Rhythm control in heart failure patients with atrial fibrillation: contemporary challenges including the role of ablation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014; 64(7): 710–721.
  18. Iacopino S, Mugnai G, Takarada K, et al. Second-generation cryoballoon ablation without the use of real-time recordings: A novel strategy based on a temperature-guided approach to ablation. Heart Rhythm. 2017; 14(3): 322–328.

Important: This website uses cookies. More >>

The cookies allow us to identify your computer and find out details about your last visit. They remembering whether you've visited the site before, so that you remain logged in - or to help us work out how many new website visitors we get each month. Most internet browsers accept cookies automatically, but you can change the settings of your browser to erase cookies or prevent automatic acceptance if you prefer.

By "Via Medica sp. z o.o." sp.k., Świętokrzyska 73 street, 80–180 Gdańsk, Poland

tel.:+48 58 320 94 94, faks:+48 58 320 94 60, e-mail: viamedica@viamedica.pl