Clin Res Cardiol (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00392-022-02002-5 |
||
A direct comparison between POLARx- versus Arctic Front Advance-guided pulmonary vein isolation | ||
D. Guckel1, P. Lucas1, K. Isgandarova1, M. El Hamriti1, L. Bergau1, T. Fink1, V. Sciacca1, G. Imnadze1, M. Braun1, M. Khalaph1, G. Nölker2, C. Sohns1, P. Sommer1 | ||
1Klinik für Elektrophysiologie/Rhythmologie, Herz- und Diabeteszentrum NRW, Bad Oeynhausen; 2Innere Klinik II / Kardiologie, Christliches Klinikum Unna (CKU), Unna; | ||
Background
Objectives
Methods
Results Acute PVI was achieved in all patients (n=596, 100%). Total procedure duration (POLARx, 113.3±23.2 min, AFA, 100.9±21.3 min; p<0.001) and fluoroscopy time (POLARx, 10.5±5.9 min, AFA, 4.8±3.6 min; p<0.001) were significantly longer in the POLARx group. The POLARx balloon achieved significantly lower nadir temperatures (POLARx, -57.7±0.9 °C, AFA, -45.1±2.6 °C; p<0.001). One major complication requiring intervention occurred in the POLARx (2%) and three (1%) in the AFA group. AF-recurrence rates were significantly higher in the AFA group compared to POLARx treated patients (POLARx, n=20, 31%; AFA, n=208, 39%; p=0.049*). While there were no significant group differences in recurrence rate at the 3 months follow up (POLARx, n=15, 23%; AFA, n=94, 18%; p=0.072), AFA patients showed a significantly higher recurrence rate at the 6 months follow-up (AFA, n=177, 33%; POLARx, n=11, 17%; p=0.004*).
Conclusion |
||
https://dgk.org/kongress_programme/jt2022/aP842.html |