Incidence of pulmonary vein stenosis in two types of cryoballoon systems

Abstract

Abstract Background Currently, two types of cryoballoon (CB) systems are available for catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF). Since the POLARx (Boston Scientific) is softer during freezing than the Arctic Front Advance Pro (AFA‐Pro; Medtronic), it tends to go more deeply into the pulmonary vein (PV), risking PV stenosis. Methods Ninety‐one patients underwent initial CB ablation for paroxysmal AF (AFA‐Pro 56; POLARx 35). Twenty‐six from each group were extracted using propensity score matching. The PV cross‐sectional area (PVA) was measured by tracing the area within the PV plane at 5‐mm intervals from the PV ostium in a distal direction for 20 mm or to the bifurcation in each PV. The PVA was compared before and 3 months after ablation. Results Time to balloon temperatures of −30 and − 40°C was significantly shorter and the nadir temperature was significantly lower with POLARx than with AFA‐Pro. In the left inferior (LI) PV and right superior (RS) PV, the freezing balloon position was significantly deeper in POLARx than in AFA‐pro. The freezing position in RSPV with mild to moderate narrowing was deeper than those without (10.2 ± 3.3 mm vs. 8.2 ± 1.8 mm, p = .01). In RSPV, the reduction of PVA tended to be greater with the POLARx than with the AFA‐Pro (26.1% ± 14.1% vs. 19.9% ± 10.3%, p = .07). Conclusion There was no significant difference in the incidence of PV stenosis between POLARx and AFA‐Pro. However, if POLARx goes deep into the PVs, we will still have to be careful.

Keywords

• atrial fibrillation
• complication
• cryoballoon
• pulmonary vein isolation
• stenosis