Comparison of procedural efficacy and biophysical parameters between two competing cryoballoon technologies for pulmonary vein isolation: Insights from an initial multicenter experience

Introduction Recently a novel cryoballoon system (POLARx, Boston Scientific) became available for the treatment of atrial fibrillation. This cryoballoon is comparable with Arctic Front Advance Pro (AFA‐Pro, Medtronic), however, it maintains a constant balloon pressure. We compared the procedural eff...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology 2021-03, Vol.32 (3), p.580-587
Hauptverfasser: Yap, Sing‐Chien, Anic, Ante, Breskovic, Toni, Haas, Annika, Bhagwandien, Rohit E., Jurisic, Zrinka, Szili‐Torok, Tamas, Luik, Armin
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Introduction Recently a novel cryoballoon system (POLARx, Boston Scientific) became available for the treatment of atrial fibrillation. This cryoballoon is comparable with Arctic Front Advance Pro (AFA‐Pro, Medtronic), however, it maintains a constant balloon pressure. We compared the procedural efficacy and biophysical characteristics of both systems. Methods One hundred and ten consecutive patients who underwent first‐time cryoballoon ablation (POLARx: n = 57; AFA‐Pro: n = 53) were included in this prospective cohort study. Results Acute isolation was achieved in 99.8% of all pulmonary veins (POLARx: 99.5% vs. AFA‐Pro: 100%, p = 1.00). Total procedure time (81 vs. 67 min, p 
ISSN:1045-3873
1540-8167
1540-8167
DOI:10.1111/jce.14915