Skip to main content
Indian Pacing and Electrophysiology Journal logoLink to Indian Pacing and Electrophysiology Journal
. 2024 Jan 12;24(3):123–129. doi: 10.1016/j.ipej.2024.01.001

The efficacy and safety of cryoballoon atrial fibrillation ablation in patients with heart failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Nithi Tokavanich a, Witina Techasatian b, Narut Prasitlumkum c, Wisit Cheungpasitporn d, Leenhapong Navaravong e, Krit Jongarangsin a, Ronpichai Chokesuwattanaskul f,
PMCID: PMC11143725  PMID: 38218450

Abstract

Introduction

While atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation has proven beneficial for heart failure (HF) patients, most reports were performed with radiofrequency ablation. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of cryoballoon AF ablation in patients with HFrEF.

Method

We comprehensively searched the databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane database from inception to December 2022. Studies that reported the outcomes of freedom from atrial arrhythmia, complications, NYHA functional class (NYHA FC), and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) after Cryoballoon AF ablation in HF patients were included. Data from each study were combined with a random-effects model.

Result

A total of 9 studies observational studies with 1414 HF patients were included. Five studies had only HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), 1 study with HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), and others with mixed HF types. Freedom from AA in HFrEF at 12 months was 64% (95% CI 56–71%, I2 58%). There was a significant improvement of LVEF in these patients with a standard mean difference of 13% (95% CI 8.6–17.5%, I2 99% P < 0.001. The complication rate in HFrEF group was 6% (95% CI 4–10%, I2 0%). The risk of recurrence of atrial arrhythmia was not significantly different between HF and no HF patients (RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.8–2.23, I2 76%).

Conclusion

Cryoballoon AF ablation is effective in HFrEF patients comparable to radiofrequency ablation. The complication rate was low.

Keywords: Cryoballoon ablation, Heart failure, Cryoablation, Atrial fibrillation

1. Introduction

Catheter ablation (CA) is among the widely accepted atrial fibrillation (AF) rhythm-control strategies. CA has been proven beneficial in AF patients with heart failure (HF), especially in heart failure-reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). AF CA was shown to mitigate the mortality rates and worsening heart failure in the CASTLE-AF study [1,2]. Meanwhile, in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), AF CA was associated with reduced heart failure hospitalization compared to pharmacological therapy alone [3]. AF CA in heart failure patients has become a more attractive therapeutic option, with growing evidence supporting its use in this group of patients. However, the majority of those reports were performed with radiofrequency ablation [1,4,5].

Cryoballoon (CB) AF ablation is a technique that uses cryogenic energy applied with a balloon to isolate pulmonary vein antrum with cold temperature [6]. CB has demonstrated comparable efficacy and safety endpoints compared to RF ablation [7]. However, there is still a lack of evidence for using CB ablation in AF patients with heart failure, both HFrEF and HFpEF.

In this study, our primary objective is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of CB AF ablation in heart failure reduced ejection fraction and other types of heart failure.

2. Method

2.1. Literature review and search strategy

The protocol for this meta-analysis is registered with PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews; no. CRD 42023387762) [8]. A systematic literature search of MEDLINE (1946 to December 2022), EMBASE (1988 to December 2022), SCOPUS (database inception to December 2022), and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (database inception to December 2022) was conducted. The need for approval from the institutional review board was waived because publicly available cumulative published data were used.

The systematic literature review was undertaken independently by two investigators (R.C. and N.T.) applying search terms of “cryoballoon” OR “cryoablation” combined with “heart failure” AND “atrial fibrillation” OR “AF” provided in supplementary data 1. A manual search for relevant studies was also performed. Only English language studies were included. This study was conducted by the STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) [9] and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement [10].

2.2. Selection criteria

Studies reported outcomes of CB AF ablation in heart failure patients, including all types of heart failure (HFrEF, HFmEF, and HFpEF). Eligible studies must be observational studies (cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional) and clinical trials. Inclusion was not limited by study size and was not determined by the generation of CB. Case reports were excluded. We also excluded studies that did not publish the full-length manuscript.

2.2.1. Eligible study

  • Study that reported freedom from atrial arrhythmia (AA) after CB AF ablation. Atrial arrhythmia includes atrial tachycardia (AT), atrial flutter (AFL), and atrial fibrillation (AF).

  • The study reported major complications after CB AF ablation, including pericardial effusion/pericardial tamponade, atrioesophageal fistula, phrenic nerve injury, vascular complications that required intervention, and bronchial damage.

2.2.2. Primary outcome of the study

  • Freedom from atrial arrhythmia (AA) after CB AF ablation in patient with HFrEF

  • Complication from CB AF ablation in patients with HFrEF

2.2.3. Secondary outcome

  • Freedom from atrial arrhythmia (AA) after CB AF ablation in other heart failure types (HFpEF and HFmEF)

  • Comparing risk of atrial arrhythmia in HF and non-HF patients who underwent cryoballoon AF ablation.

The retrieved articles were individually reviewed by the two investigators (W.T. and N.T.). Discrepancies were discussed and resolved by a third researcher (R.C.). The Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale was used to appraise the quality of the study for case-control studies and outcomes of interest for cohort studies [11]. The modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used for cross-sectional studies [12]. The risk of bias by Cochrane Collaboration’s tool was used for assessing the risk of bias for randomized controlled trials, as shown in Table 1.

Table 1.

Study characteristic.

Author Year Population HF population Type of study Country AF type HF type Ablation technique Pre ablation LVEF (%) Post ablation LVEF (%) Catheter Freedom from AA at 12 months in CB (%)
Pruszkowska 2018 89 30 Observational Poland pAF/peAF HFrEF PVI 30 37 2nd Generation Cryoablation Arctic Front (Medtronic) 43.3
Heeger 2019 551 50 Observational Germany pAF/peAF HFrEF PVI 37 55 2nd Generation Cryoablation Arctic Front (Medtronic) 73.1
Maj 2019 38 38 Observational Italy pAF/peAF HFrEF PVI 37.3 40.7 2nd Generation Cryoablation Arctic Front (Medtronic) 76.3
Pott 2020 414 113 Observational Germany pAF/peAF HFrEF PVI 38.4 52.5 2nd Generation Cryoablation Arctic Front (Medtronic) 64.6
Prabhu 2021 76 76 Observational Australia pAF/peAF HFrEF PVI 32 45 2nd Generation Cryoablation Arctic Front (Medtronic) 70
Rordorf 2021 1303 318 Observational Asia and Europe pAF/peAF HFrEF/HFpEF PVI 58 NA Arctic Front Advance Pro (Medtronic) 80.5
Chen 2022 471 216 Observational China pAF/peAF HFpEF/HFmEF/HFrEF PVI NA NA 2nd Generation Cryoablation Arctic Front (Medtronic) 91.6
Yanagisawa 2022 3655 549 Observational Japan pAF/peAF HFrEF/HFpEF PVI 56.2 59.7 2nd Generation Cryoablation Arctic Front (Medtronic) 80.1
Zylla 2022 102 24 Observational Germany pAF/peAF HFpEF PVI 57.1 56.3 2nd Generation Cryoablation Arctic Front (Medtronic) 41.6

2.3. Data abstraction

A structured data collecting form was utilized to derive the following information from each study, including title, year of the study, name of the first author, publication year, the country where the study was conducted, and demographic and characteristic data of patients who underwent CB AF ablation. The primary outcomes, including freedom from atrial arrhythmia and complications, were collected. The secondary outcomes, including left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and New York Heart Association Functional Class (NYHA FC), were also collected, as shown in Table 1.

2.4. Statistical analysis

Analyses were performed using R software version 3.6.3 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria). The raw data for this systematic review is publicly available through the Open Science Framework (URL: https://osf.io/h9qwu/). Adjusted point estimates from each included study were combined by the generic inverse variance approach of DerSimonian and Laird, which designated the weight of each study based on its variance [13]. Given the possibility of between-study variance, we used a random-effects model. Cochran’s Q test and I2 statistics were applied to determine the heterogeneity of the analysis. A value of I2 of 0–25% indicates insignificant heterogeneity, 26–50% low heterogeneity, 51–75% moderate heterogeneity, and 76–100% high heterogeneity [14]. The publication bias was assessed via the Egger test [15]. The sensitivity analysis was done by omitting one study at a time to evaluate the effect of each study.

3. Result

A total of 9 studies [[16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]] were included in the analysis after exclusion of duplicate articles, case reports, correspondences, review articles, in vitro studies, pediatric patient population, or animal studies. All the included studies were observational.

The total number of participants was 6699. The study consisted of 1414 patients with heart failure who underwent CB AF ablation. The literature retrieval, review, and selection process are illustrated in Fig. 1. The characteristics and quality assessment of the included studies are presented in Table 1.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

The literature retrieval, review and selection process.

The sample size of each study ranged from 89 patients to 3655 patients, with no study conducted in the Northern American region. Pulmonary vein isolation was the sole technique performed in all studies. Four out of 9 studies did not compare the success rate of AF ablation between HF and non-HF patients. Eight out of nine studies performed PVI with 2nd generation CB (Arctic Front Advance, Medtronic), and one study performed PVI with 3rd generation CB (Arctic Front Advance Pro, Medtronic).

Five out of 9 studies reported the success rate of the procedure in patients with HFrEF. Three studies reported outcomes in mixed HF (HFrEF, HFpEF and HFmEF). Only one study provided success rate in HFpEF patients and Three studies provided result from mixed heart failure types (HFrEF, HFpEF, and HFmEF).

3.1. Freedom from atrial arrhythmia (AA) in HFrEF

The pooled freedom from AA at 12 months in the study with only HFrEF was 64% (95% CI 56–71%, I2 58%), with 197 patients from 307 patients remaining in sinus rhythm. Fig. 2 The highest achievable freedom from AA in all studies was 76 %, while the lowest was 43% [16,18].

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Pooled freedom from atrial arrhythmia in heart failure reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) patient. Square data markers represent patient without AA, and horizontal line represent the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) with marker size reflecting the statistical weight of study. A diamond data marker represents overall hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval.

3.2. Freedom from atrial arrhythmia (AA) in other heart failure types (HFpEF and HFmEF)

There was only 1 study that reported a success rate of CB AF ablation in HFpEF which reported 41.6% freedom from atrial arrhythmia at 12 months. Five studies compared AA freedom between patients with and without HF, which showed no difference between the two groups (RR 1.34 (95%CI 0.8–2.23, I2 76%, P 0.19) [17,19,21,23,25] Recurrent AA in the HF group was 149/723 (20.6%) and recurrent AA in no HF was 364/1669 (21.8%), as shown in Fig. 3 The Funnel plots of this outcome were provided in supplementary data 1.

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3

Freedom from AA between heart failure and no heart failure. Square data markers represent risk ratio (RR), and horizontal line represents the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) with marker size reflecting the statistical weight of study. A diamond data marker represents overall hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval.

3.3. Complications related to the procedure

The major complication in HFrEF group was 6% (95%CI 4–10%, I2 0). Fig. 4 Major complication rate from all heart failure types was also 6% (95% CI 4–7%, I2 17%). Supplementary Data 1 The most common complication was phrenic nerve injury. From 5 studies available for the analysis, we found no significant difference in complication rates between patients with and without HF (RR = 1.38 (95% CI 0.94–2.02, I2 0%, P 0.07), as shown in Fig. 5. The bronchial injury was found in only a study with a HF patient and three patients without HF [24]. No death related to CB ablation was discovered. The Funnel plots are shown in supplementary data 1.

Fig. 4.

Fig. 4

Pooled major complication rate in HFrEF. Square data markers represent mean complication rate, and horizontal line represents the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) with marker size reflecting the statistical weight of study. A diamond data marker represents overall hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval.

Fig. 5.

Fig. 5

The complication rate between HF patients and no HF patients. Square data markers represent risk ratio (RR), and horizontal line represents the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) with marker size reflecting the statistical weight of study. A diamond data marker represents overall hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval.

3.4. Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and NYHA functional class

Four studies reported pre and post-ablation LVEF in patients with HFrEF [16,19,20,26]. There was a significant improvement of LVEF in these patients with a standard mean difference of 13% (95% CI 8.6–17.5%, I2 99% P < 0.001). Supplementary Data 1 Three out of 4 studies showed improvement in post-ablation LVEF by more than 10% compared to pre-ablation LVEF [19,20,26].

Seven studies out of 9 studies reported pre and post-ablation NYHA functional class. After CB ablation [16,[18], [19], [20], [21],23,26], NYHA FC was improved significantly with a mean difference of −0.46 (95% CI -0.72,-0.2, I2 100%, P 0.006) supplementary data 1.

4. Discussion

Our study suggested that CB AF ablation in HFrEF patients was associated with freedom from AA at 12 months 64%. CB ablation is deemed safe in HFrEF patients with major complication rates up to 6%.

From many previous studies, patients with heart failure are more susceptible to developing a recurrence of AF, despite the ablation. One postulated mechanism is an increase in left atrial pressure, which would lead to atrial stretch and further facilitate the initiation of arrhythmia. Other possibilities include dysregulation of the autonomic nervous system, neurohormonal system, and intracellular calcium disruption [27]. Unexpectedly, Freedom from atrial arrhythmia at 12 months in HFrEF with cryoballoon ablation was similar to other CB studies in patients without heart failure [28,29]. The freedom from AA in those studies was approximately 60–70% at 12 months. Our analysis also showed a success rate of CB AF ablation in HFrEF patients with freedom from AA 64% at one year compared to previous studies, in which patients underwent RF ablation the success rate was slightly lower than our analysis (Freedom from AA 40–62% in earlier reports) [30,31]. Better rhythm control after ablation may have led to reverse remodeling of the left atrium, thus lowering the AF recurrent rates. This hypothesis has been well supported by our findings, which showed a remarkable improvement in LVEF after the CB ablation. While CB AF ablation is a more recently developed technique than the conventional RF ablation, the success rate with this technique is likely to be better when operators gain more experience [32]. In our opinion, CB should be considered an alternative method to RF ablation in this group of patients.

In previous reports, complications associated with CB AF ablation are similar to RF ablation [33,34]. Atrioesophageal fistula is a deadly complication which may occur in patients who undergo CB ablation, even though at a much lower rate compared to RF ablation [34]. Another potential complication unique to CB AF ablation is a bronchial injury. The long-term consequences of bronchial injury after the procedure remained unknown [35]. The complication rate from our analysis in HFrEF patients was 6% after 12 months follow up with only 1 patient in all studies experiencing bronchial injury and no death related to cryo balloon ablation. Overall complication related to RF ablation was 6% in a worldwide survey from 2005 and decreased to 4.5% from a worldwide survey in 2010 [36,37]. According to the data from RF ablation complication rate tends to be lessening with time with newer technology and more experienced operators.

5. Limitation

There were several limitations in our analysis. The first major limitation is that we did not have enough data to analyze each type of heart failure (HFpEF and HFmEF) separately as each type of heart failure has a different natural course which could lead to inaccuracy of total success rate. We also did not have sufficient data to analyze the success rate according to AF types (paroxysmal, persistent, and longstanding persistent). This also could lead to an inaccurate success rate. The second limitation was the type of study, there were only observational studies included in this analysis. The bias from this type of study was unavoidable. The third limitation of our analysis is the follow up time. The analysis only followed patient for 12 months which is relatively short period. Additionally, the availability of either time or person-years data was limited in the included studies, constraining our ability to provide a more nuanced presentation of follow-up duration. A longer follow-up time is needed to clarify the efficacy of CB AF ablation in heart failure patients. The fourth limitation was the data on antiarrhythmic used post ablation. Most of the studies in our analysis stopped antiarrhythmic drug 3 months after ablation. However, some studies did not stop antiarrhythmic after the procedure and some studies did not mention specifically mention about this protocol. This issue could lead to bias in interpreting the success rate of CB ablation. Finally, this analysis did not include major outcomes such as heart failure hospitalization or mortality due to insufficient data.

6. Conclusion

Cryoballoon AF ablation resulted in good efficacy and safety in patients with HFrEF. However, further study needs to be done to emphasize our findings.

Authors' contributions

All authors had access to the study data, and they played a role in writing the manuscript.

Funding

No funding was received in this study.

Ethical approval

The need for approval from the institutional review board was waived because publicly available cumulative published data were used.

Consent

No inform consent needed due to the type of study.

Clinical trial registry

No clinical trial registry needed due to type of study.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Footnotes

Peer review under responsibility of Indian Heart Rhythm Society.

Appendix A

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipej.2024.01.001.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

The following is the Supplementary data to this article:

Multimedia component 1
mmc1.docx (764.6KB, docx)

References

  • 1.Marrouche N.F., Brachmann J., Andresen D., et al. Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation with heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2018/02/01 2018;378(5):417–427. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1707855. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.January C.T., Wann L.S., Calkins H., et al. AHA/ACC/HRS focused update of the 2014 AHA/ACC/HRS guideline for the management of patients with atrial fibrillation: a report of the American college of cardiology/American heart association task force on clinical practice guidelines and the heart rhythm society. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;74(1):104–132. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.01.011. Jul 9 2019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Fukui A., Tanino T., Yamaguchi T., et al. Catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation reduces heart failure rehospitalization in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2020;31(3):682–688. doi: 10.1111/jce.14369. 2020/03/01. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Prabhu S., Taylor A.J., Costello B.T., et al. Catheter ablation versus medical rate control in atrial fibrillation and systolic dysfunction: the CAMERA-MRI study. J Am Coll Cardiol. Oct 17 2017;70(16):1949–1961. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2017.08.041. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Koplan B.A., Stevenson W.G. Atrial fibrillation in heart failure: should catheter ablation play a larger role? Circulation. Apr 26 2016;133(17):1631–1633. doi: 10.1161/circulationaha.116.022261. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Andrade Jason G., Wazni Oussama M., Kuniss M., et al. Cryoballoon ablation as initial treatment for atrial fibrillation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2021/08/31 2021;78(9):914–930. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2021.06.038. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Wu C., Li X., Lv Z., et al. Second-generation cryoballoon versus contact force radiofrequency ablation for atrial fibrillation: an updated meta-analysis of evidence from randomized controlled trials. Sci Rep. Sep 9 2021;11(1) doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-96820-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Schiavo J.H. PROSPERO: an international register of systematic review protocols. Med Ref Serv Q. Apr-Jun 2019;38(2):171–180. doi: 10.1080/02763869.2019.1588072. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.von Elm E., Altman D.G., Egger M., Pocock S.J., Gotzsche P.C., Vandenbroucke J.P. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. PLoS Med. Oct 16 2007;4(10):e296. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040296. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Moher D., Liberati A., Tetzlaff J., Altman D.G. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. Jul 21 2009;6(7) doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Stang A. Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol. Sep 2010;25(9):603–605. doi: 10.1007/s10654-010-9491-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Herzog R., Alvarez-Pasquin M.J., Diaz C., Del Barrio J.L., Estrada J.M., Gil A. Are healthcare workers' intentions to vaccinate related to their knowledge, beliefs and attitudes? A systematic review. BMC Publ Health. 2013;13:154. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-13-154. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.DerSimonian R., Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Contr Clin Trial. 1986;7(3):177–188. doi: 10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Higgins J.P., Thompson S.G., Deeks J.J., Altman D.G. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. Sep 6 2003;327(7414):557–560. doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Easterbrook P.J., Berlin J.A., Gopalan R., Matthews D.R. Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet. Apr 13 1991;337(8746):867–872. doi: 10.1016/0140-6736(91)90201-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Pruszkowska P., Lenarczyk R., Gumprecht J., et al. Cryoballoon ablation of atrial fibrillation in patients with advanced systolic heart failure and cardiac implantable electronic devices. Article. Kardiol Pol. 2018;76(7):1081–1088. doi: 10.5603/KP.a2018.0068. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Heeger C.H., Abdin A., Mathew S., et al. Efficacy and safety of cryoballoon ablation in patients with heart failure and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction ― A multicenter study. Article. Circ J. 2019;83(8):1653–1659. doi: 10.1253/circj.CJ-19-0151. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Maj R., Iacopino S., Ströker E., et al. Mid-term outcome following second-generation cryoballoon ablation for atrial fibrillation in heart failure patients: effectiveness of single 3-min freeze cryoablation performed in a cohort of patients with reduced left ventricular systolic function. J Cardiovasc Med (Hagerstown) Oct 2019;20(10):667–675. doi: 10.2459/jcm.0000000000000845. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Pott A., Jäck S., Schweizer C., et al. Atrial fibrillation ablation in heart failure patients: improved systolic function after cryoballoon pulmonary vein isolation. ESC Heart Fail. 2020;7(5):2258–2267. doi: 10.1002/ehf2.12735. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Prabhu S., Ahluwalia N., Tyebally S.M., et al. Long-term outcomes of index cryoballoon ablation or point-by-point radiofrequency ablation in patients with atrial fibrillation and systolic heart failure. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2021;32(4):941–948. doi: 10.1111/jce.14923. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Chen C., Cheng K., Gao X., et al. Cryoballoon ablation for atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure with mildly reduced and preserved ejection fraction. ESC Heart Fail. Nov 3 2022 doi: 10.1002/ehf2.14212. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Yanagisawa S., Suzuki H., Kanzaki Y., et al. Efficacy and feasibility of cryoballoon ablation for atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure: a large-scale multicenter study. Article. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2022;33(12):2447–2464. doi: 10.1111/jce.15691. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Zylla M.M., Leiner J., Rahm A.K., et al. Cryoballoon-ablation of atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction. Conference Abstract. Europace. 2022;24(SUPPL 1):i305–i307. doi: 10.1093/europace/euac053.210. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Rordorf R., Scazzuso F., Chun K.R.J., et al. Cryoballoon ablation for the treatment of atrial fibrillation in patients with concomitant heart failure and either reduced or preserved left ventricular ejection fraction: results from the cryo AF global registry. J Am Heart Assoc. Dec 21 2021;10(24) doi: 10.1161/jaha.121.021323. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Rordorf R., Scazzuso F., Chun K.R.J., et al. Healthcare utilization after cryoballoon ablation for treatment of atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure: real-world results from the Cryo AF Global Registry. Conf Abstr Europace. 2021;23(SUPPL 3):iii79. doi: 10.1093/europace/euab116.074. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Heeger C.H., Abdin A., Liosis S., et al. Efficacy and safety of cryoballoon ablation in patients with heart failure and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction: a multicenter study. Conference Abstract. J Intervent Card Electrophysiol. 2019;55:S29–S30. doi: 10.1007/s10840-019-00559-2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Anter E., Jessup M., Callans D.J. Atrial fibrillation and heart failure. Circulation. 2009/05/12 2009;119(18):2516–2525. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.108.821306. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Wazni O.M., Dandamudi G., Sood N., et al. Cryoballoon ablation as initial therapy for atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2021/01/28 2020;384(4):316–324. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2029554. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Andrade J.G., Champagne J., Dubuc M., et al. Cryoballoon or radiofrequency ablation for atrial fibrillation assessed by continuous monitoring. Circulation. 2019/11/26 2019;140(22):1779–1788. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.042622. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Liang J.J., Callans D.J. Ablation for atrial fibrillation in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Card Fail Rev. May 2018;4(1):33–37. doi: 10.15420/cfr.2018:3:1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Ullah W., Ling L.H., Prabhu S., et al. Catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure: impact of maintaining sinus rhythm on heart failure status and long-term rates of stroke and death. Europace. May 2016;18(5):679–686. doi: 10.1093/europace/euv440. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Perino A.C., Leef G.C., Cluckey A., et al. Secular trends in success rate of catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation: the SMASH-AF cohort. Am Heart J. Feb 2019;208:110–119. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2018.10.006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Shahabi J., Emkanjoo Z., Haghjoo M., et al. Cryoballoon ablation results and complications in mid-term follow-up of patients with atrial fibrillation. ARYA Atheroscler. Nov 2018;14(6):272–275. doi: 10.22122/arya.v14i6.1772. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Kulkarni N., Su W., Wu R. How to prevent, detect and manage complications caused by cryoballoon ablation of atrial fibrillation. Arrhythmia Electrophysiol Rev. Mar 2018;7(1):18–23. doi: 10.15420/aer.2017.32.1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Bellmann B., Hübner R.-H., Lin T., et al. Bronchial injury after atrial fibrillation ablation using the second-generation cryoballoon. Circulation: Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2018/03/01 2018;11(3) doi: 10.1161/CIRCEP.117.005925. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Cappato R., Calkins H., Chen S.-A., et al. Worldwide survey on the methods, efficacy, and safety of catheter ablation for human atrial fibrillation. Circulation. 2005/03/08 2005;111(9):1100–1105. doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000157153.30978.67. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Cappato R., Calkins H., Chen S.-A., et al. Updated worldwide survey on the methods, efficacy, and safety of catheter ablation for human atrial fibrillation. Circulation: Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2010/02/01 2010;3(1):32–38. doi: 10.1161/CIRCEP.109.859116. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Multimedia component 1
mmc1.docx (764.6KB, docx)

Articles from Indian Pacing and Electrophysiology Journal are provided here courtesy of Elsevier

RESOURCES