Hot balloon versus cryoballoon ablation in patients with atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: None. Background Atrial fibrillation (AF) incidence is expected to increase more than 60% in the following 30 years. Catheter ablation is the treatment of choice for medically intractable AF with arrhythmia recurrence remaining an unsolved issue. Purpose We systematically reviewed existing literature to compare the efficacy of hot balloon (HBA) versus cryoballoon ablation (CBA). Methods PubMed, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, medRxiv and Cochrane Library (according to PRISMA guidelines) were scrutinized for relevant articles up to 2 December 2021. Eligible studies had to compare clinical outcomes (arrhythmia recurrence rates or/and procedural data or/and safety outcomes) between patients undergoing HBA and CBA for AF. Quality assessment of studies was conducted via the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (high quality≥ 7, moderate 4-6, poor <4). Statistical pooling was performed according to a random-effect model with generic inverse-variance weighting of odds ratios and mean differences computing risk estimates with 95% confidence intervals. The presence of heterogeneity among studies was evaluated under the Cochran Q chi-square test. I² values of 25%, 50% and 75% have been assigned adjectives of low, moderate, and high heterogeneity. Publication biases were assessed by visual inspection of funnel plots. Results PRISMA study search and individual study characteristics are presented in Figure 1. Literature search identified 131 studies, 5 of which (evaluating 513 patients) met inclusion criteria. Patients undergoing HBA demonstrated similar long term recurrence rate as compared to CBA treated controls (OR: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.38-1.22; p-value: 0.19; I2: 0%). Procedural aspects, such as touch-up radiofrequency ablation (per pulmonary vein), procedure time (min) and fluoroscopic time (min) did not differ among treatment arms (OR: 1.79; 95% CI: 0.84-3.83; p-value: 0.13, I2: 80%, MD: 9.69; 95% CI: -2.78-22.16; p-value: 0.13, I2: 63%, and OR: 1.03; 95% CI: -9.50-7.44; p-value: 0.81, I2: 87%, respectively). Regarding safety outcomes (Figure 1), the small number of the reported events precluded us from analyzing these data. Yet, tamponade and phrenic nerve injury were infrequent in both modalities; pulmonary vein stenosis of at least moderate severity (>50% luminal narrowing) was reported in 18 instances in the HBA arm as compared to zero events in the CBA arm. Of note, all events were asymptomatic. Quality assessment scores are shown in Figure 1. Four studies were of high quality and one study was of moderate quality. Funnel-plot distributions of the pre-specified outcomes indicated absence of publication bias for all outcomes. High statistical heterogeneity and the small number of patients included are the main limitations of this study. Conclusion Hotballoon ablation is a promising therapeutic option for patients suffering from AF, featuring comparable efficacy and procedural outcomes with cryoablation. Safety outcomes, especially PV stenosis, mandate further evaluation.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,012 | 0,028 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,020 | 0,033 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,006 | 0,007 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».