Point-by-Point Radiofrequency Ablation Versus the Cryoballoon or a Novel Combined Approach: A Randomized Trial Comparing 3 Methods of Pulmonary Vein Isolation for Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation (The Cryo Versus RF Trial).

INTRODUCTION: Catheter ablation of paroxysmal AF using the Cryoballoon (CRYO) has yielded similar success rates to conventional wide encirclement using radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA), but randomized data are lacking. Pilot data suggested a high success rate with a combined approach (COMBINED) using wide encirclement with RFCA followed by 2 CRYO applications to each vein. We compared these 3 strategies in a randomized controlled trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients undergoing first time paroxysmal AF ablation were randomized to RFCA, CRYO, or COMBINED. Patients were followed up at 3, 6, and 12 months with 7 days of ambulatory ECG monitoring. Success was defined as freedom from arrhythmia without antiarrhythmic drugs after a single procedure. A total of 237 patients were randomized. Success at 1 year was achieved in 47% in the RFCA group, 67% in the CRYO group, and 76% in the COMBINED group (P < 0.001 for RFCA vs. CRYO, P<0.001 for RFCA vs. COMBINED, and P = 0.220 for CRYO vs. COMBINED). Procedure time was 211 (IQR 174-256) minutes for RFCA compared to 167 (136-202) minutes for CRYO and 278 (243-327) minutes for COMBINED (P < 0.001 for RFCA vs. COMBINED, RFCA vs. CRYO, and CRYO vs. COMBINED groups). CONCLUSIONS: Pulmonary vein isolation for paroxysmal AF is faster with CRYO and results in a higher single procedure success rate than conventional point by point RFCA. The COMBINED approach was not superior to CRYO alone.

Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation on uninterrupted warfarin: can it be done without echo guidance?

INTRODUCTION: Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation is an effective treatment for symptomatic patients who have failed drug therapy. Recent studies using intracardiac echocardiography have demonstrated that ablation can be performed safely on uninterrupted warfarin and may be superior to bridging low molecular weight heparin (LMWH). We sought to assess the safety of an uninterrupted warfarin protocol using a simplified ablation protocol in a prospective controlled study. METHODS: Two anticoagulation regimes for patients undergoing catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation were evaluated--a bridging LMWH group and an uninterrupted warfarin group. Bleeding complications were compared between the 2 groups. RESULTS: In total 198 patients were evaluated (109 bridging LMWH, 89 uninterrupted warfarin). The preprocedure INR in the LMWH group (mean age 60.6 years, 72% male) was 1.2 ± 0.3 compared to 2.3 ± 0.5 in the uninterrupted warfarin group (mean age 60.9 years, 69% male). The primary outcome (a composite of major and minor bleeding complications) was observed in 78% in the LMWH group compared to 56% in the warfarin group (P = 0.001), mainly due to increased pain at the venous access site (41% vs 16%, P = 0.001). Two patients undergoing ablation on warfarin required pericardiocentesis for cardiac tamponade. Drug costs were lower in the warfarin group ($64.77 ± 31.86 vs $20.76 ± 15.60, P = 0.005), but the overall cost of treatment per patient (including bed occupancy costs) was similar in the LMWH group compared to the warfarin group ($883.96 ± 278.78 vs $816.59 ± 182.72, P = 0.06). CONCLUSION: Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation can be performed safely on uninterrupted warfarin without intracardiac echocardiography, with a reduced risk of bleeding complications.