Limin Lin, Ying Huang, Qunying Huang, Fuling Yu, Yinjun Mao
{"title":"心房颤动高功率短时消融术与冷冻球囊消融术的 Meta 分析。","authors":"Limin Lin, Ying Huang, Qunying Huang, Fuling Yu, Yinjun Mao","doi":"10.1111/pace.15004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The existing literature regarding the treatment strategy for high-power short-duration (HPSD) ablation in patients diagnosed with atrial fibrillation (AF) is currently insufficient. The objective of this study is to perform a comparative analysis evaluating the effectiveness, safety, and procedural efficiency of HPSD versus cryoballoon ablation (CBA) for AF.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases to identify trials comparing HPSD with CBA for AF from their inception until December 25, 2023. Treatment effect measures were expressed as odds ratio (OR), mean difference (MD), accompanied by a 95% confidence interval (CI).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The analysis comprised six eligible trials involving a total enrollment of 2481 patients. No statistically significant disparities were observed in recurrent atrial arrhythmia (OR 0.90; 95% CI, 0.71-1.16) or total complications (OR 0.65; 95% CI, 0.38-1.12) between the two ablation techniques examined in this study. However, HPSD technique exhibited a significantly prolonged procedure time (MD 27.42; 95% CI, 19.03 to 35.81). Conversely, no significant differences were observed between the two modalities in terms of total fluoroscopy duration (MD -4.37; 95% CI -10.70 to 1.96) and ablation time (MD 7.95; 95% CI -3.97 to 19.88). Furthermore, HPSD demonstrated significantly higher odds of extrapulmonary vein (PV) trigger ablation compared to CBA (OR 18.86; 95% CI, 5.12-69.49). The subgroup analyses revealed that CBA continued to exhibit superior procedure time (except for the paroxysmal AF subgroup: [MD 29.52; 95% CI -4.25 to 63.60]), while no significant differences in safety and efficacy (except for the HPSD ≥ 70 W subgroup: [OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.20-0.97]) outcomes were still observed.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Among patients undergoing ablation therapy for AF, both HPSD and CBA demonstrate comparable efficacy and safety profiles; however, HPSD is associated with longer procedural time and higher rates of extra-PV trigger ablation.</p>","PeriodicalId":54653,"journal":{"name":"Pace-Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Meta-analysis of high-power short-duration versus cryoballoon ablation for atrial fibrillation.\",\"authors\":\"Limin Lin, Ying Huang, Qunying Huang, Fuling Yu, Yinjun Mao\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/pace.15004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The existing literature regarding the treatment strategy for high-power short-duration (HPSD) ablation in patients diagnosed with atrial fibrillation (AF) is currently insufficient. The objective of this study is to perform a comparative analysis evaluating the effectiveness, safety, and procedural efficiency of HPSD versus cryoballoon ablation (CBA) for AF.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases to identify trials comparing HPSD with CBA for AF from their inception until December 25, 2023. Treatment effect measures were expressed as odds ratio (OR), mean difference (MD), accompanied by a 95% confidence interval (CI).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The analysis comprised six eligible trials involving a total enrollment of 2481 patients. No statistically significant disparities were observed in recurrent atrial arrhythmia (OR 0.90; 95% CI, 0.71-1.16) or total complications (OR 0.65; 95% CI, 0.38-1.12) between the two ablation techniques examined in this study. However, HPSD technique exhibited a significantly prolonged procedure time (MD 27.42; 95% CI, 19.03 to 35.81). Conversely, no significant differences were observed between the two modalities in terms of total fluoroscopy duration (MD -4.37; 95% CI -10.70 to 1.96) and ablation time (MD 7.95; 95% CI -3.97 to 19.88). Furthermore, HPSD demonstrated significantly higher odds of extrapulmonary vein (PV) trigger ablation compared to CBA (OR 18.86; 95% CI, 5.12-69.49). The subgroup analyses revealed that CBA continued to exhibit superior procedure time (except for the paroxysmal AF subgroup: [MD 29.52; 95% CI -4.25 to 63.60]), while no significant differences in safety and efficacy (except for the HPSD ≥ 70 W subgroup: [OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.20-0.97]) outcomes were still observed.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Among patients undergoing ablation therapy for AF, both HPSD and CBA demonstrate comparable efficacy and safety profiles; however, HPSD is associated with longer procedural time and higher rates of extra-PV trigger ablation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54653,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pace-Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pace-Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/pace.15004\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/6/8 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pace-Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/pace.15004","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:目前,有关确诊为心房颤动(房颤)患者的高功率短时消融(HPSD)治疗策略的现有文献尚不充分。本研究旨在对高功率短时消融(HPSD)与冷冻气球消融(CBA)治疗房颤的有效性、安全性和手术效率进行比较分析评估:方法:在PubMed、EMBASE、Cochrane Library、Scopus、Web of Science和ClinicalTrials.gov数据库中进行了全面检索,以确定从开始到2023年12月25日期间比较HPSD与CBA治疗房颤的试验。治疗效果以几率比(OR)、平均差(MD)以及95%置信区间(CI)表示:分析包括六项符合条件的试验,共招募了 2481 名患者。在复发性房性心律失常(OR:0.90;95% CI:0.71-1.16)或总并发症(OR:0.65;95% CI:0.38-1.12)方面,本研究中的两种消融技术没有发现明显的统计学差异。然而,HPSD 技术明显延长了手术时间(MD 27.42;95% CI,19.03 至 35.81)。相反,在透视总时间(MD -4.37;95% CI -10.70至1.96)和消融时间(MD 7.95;95% CI -3.97至19.88)方面,两种方式之间没有观察到明显差异。此外,与 CBA 相比,HPSD 发生肺静脉外 (PV) 触发消融的几率明显更高(OR 18.86;95% CI,5.12-69.49)。亚组分析显示,CBA的手术时间仍然更优(阵发性房颤亚组除外:[MD 29.52;95% CI -4.25-63.60]),而安全性和疗效(HPSD ≥ 70 W 亚组除外:[OR 0.44,95% CI 0.20-0.97])结果仍无显著差异:结论:在接受房颤消融治疗的患者中,HPSD 和 CBA 的疗效和安全性相当;但 HPSD 的手术时间更长,PV 外触发消融率更高。
Meta-analysis of high-power short-duration versus cryoballoon ablation for atrial fibrillation.
Background: The existing literature regarding the treatment strategy for high-power short-duration (HPSD) ablation in patients diagnosed with atrial fibrillation (AF) is currently insufficient. The objective of this study is to perform a comparative analysis evaluating the effectiveness, safety, and procedural efficiency of HPSD versus cryoballoon ablation (CBA) for AF.
Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases to identify trials comparing HPSD with CBA for AF from their inception until December 25, 2023. Treatment effect measures were expressed as odds ratio (OR), mean difference (MD), accompanied by a 95% confidence interval (CI).
Results: The analysis comprised six eligible trials involving a total enrollment of 2481 patients. No statistically significant disparities were observed in recurrent atrial arrhythmia (OR 0.90; 95% CI, 0.71-1.16) or total complications (OR 0.65; 95% CI, 0.38-1.12) between the two ablation techniques examined in this study. However, HPSD technique exhibited a significantly prolonged procedure time (MD 27.42; 95% CI, 19.03 to 35.81). Conversely, no significant differences were observed between the two modalities in terms of total fluoroscopy duration (MD -4.37; 95% CI -10.70 to 1.96) and ablation time (MD 7.95; 95% CI -3.97 to 19.88). Furthermore, HPSD demonstrated significantly higher odds of extrapulmonary vein (PV) trigger ablation compared to CBA (OR 18.86; 95% CI, 5.12-69.49). The subgroup analyses revealed that CBA continued to exhibit superior procedure time (except for the paroxysmal AF subgroup: [MD 29.52; 95% CI -4.25 to 63.60]), while no significant differences in safety and efficacy (except for the HPSD ≥ 70 W subgroup: [OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.20-0.97]) outcomes were still observed.
Conclusion: Among patients undergoing ablation therapy for AF, both HPSD and CBA demonstrate comparable efficacy and safety profiles; however, HPSD is associated with longer procedural time and higher rates of extra-PV trigger ablation.
期刊介绍:
Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology (PACE) is the foremost peer-reviewed journal in the field of pacing and implantable cardioversion defibrillation, publishing over 50% of all English language articles in its field, featuring original, review, and didactic papers, and case reports related to daily practice. Articles also include editorials, book reviews, Musings on humane topics relevant to medical practice, electrophysiology (EP) rounds, device rounds, and information concerning the quality of devices used in the practice of the specialty.