Skip to main content
main-content

Tipp

Weitere Artikel dieser Ausgabe durch Wischen aufrufen

01.07.2016 | original article | Ausgabe 13-14/2016

Wiener klinische Wochenschrift 13-14/2016

Radiofrequency catheter ablation versus balloon cryoablation of atrial fibrillation: markers of myocardial damage, inflammation, and thrombogenesis

Zeitschrift:
Wiener klinische Wochenschrift > Ausgabe 13-14/2016
Autoren:
MD Bor Antolič, Andrej Pernat, Marta Cvijić, David Žižek, Matevž Jan, Matjaž Šinkovec

Summary

Background

Evidence from animal and human studies suggests that cryoablation might be associated with a lesser inflammatory response and activation of coagulation compared with radiofrequency ablation. The study was aimed at comparing the effect of cryoballoon and radiofrequency catheter ablation of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation on markers of myocardial damage, inflammation, and activation of coagulation.

Methods

Forty-one patients received either cryoballoon (n = 23) or radiofrequency (n = 18) ablation of atrial fibrillation. We measured troponin I, high-sensitivity CRP, and interleukin 6 at baseline from the cubital vein, and from the right and left atrium before and after ablation, and from the cubital vein the following day. Prothrombin fragments 1 + 2, soluble P‑selectin, and D‑dimer were measured before and after ablation from both atria.

Results

We observed higher troponin I release in the cryoballoon than in the radiofrequency group (7.01 mcg/l (interquartile range [IQR]: 5.30–9.09) vs 2.32 mcg/l (IQR: 1.45–2.98), p < 0.001). The levels of inflammatory markers (high-sensitivity CRP and interleukin 6) in the two groups were comparable, as were the levels of markers of coagulation activation. Procedure duration, fluoroscopy times, and mid-term success (23 months, IQR 7–32) of the two groups were also comparable.

Conclusions

Cryoballoon ablation of atrial fibrillation causes more significant myocardial damage, that is, more extensive ablation lesions, compared with radiofrequency catheter ablation. However, no major differences between these two ablation techniques with regard to the inflammatory response and activation of the coagulation system were observed.

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Sie möchten Zugang zu diesem Inhalt erhalten? Dann informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Abo für kostenpflichtige Inhalte

Literatur
Über diesen Artikel

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 13-14/2016

Wiener klinische Wochenschrift 13-14/2016 Zur Ausgabe

mitteilungen der gesellschaft der ärzte in wien

Veranstaltungen