Balloon technologies for pulmonary vein isolation—12-month outcome and comparison of the novel radiofrequency balloon with the cryoballoon in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation

Abstract

Background The cryoballoon (CB) has become a standard tool for pulmonary vein isolation (PVI), but the technology is limited in certain ways. A novel RF-balloon (Heliostar™, Biosense Webster, CA, USA) promises the advantages of a balloon technology in combination with 3D mapping. Methods To assess procedural data and outcome, all patients undergoing RF-balloon PVI were included and compared with data from consecutive patients undergoing CB PVI for paroxysmal AF. Results A total of 254 patients (63 ± 13 years, 54% male) were included: 30 patients undergoing RF-balloon and 224 patients CB PVI. Baseline parameters were comparable. Procedure duration (104.3 ± 35.3 min vs. 69.9 ± 23.1 min; p ≤ 0.001) and fluoroscopy time (16.3 ± 7.1 min vs. 11.6 ± 4.9 min; p ≤ 0.001) were longer using the RF-balloon; ablation time (43.5 ± 17.9 vs. 36.4 ± 15.6; p = 0.08) did not differ, and time-to-isolation (TTI) was shorter (18.2 ± 7.0 s vs. 62.8 ± 35.1 s; p ≤ 0.001). Second-generation RF-balloon cases showed shorter ablation time and TTI at comparable procedure duration and fluoroscopy time. One pericardial effusion occurred with the RF-balloon due to complicated transseptal access. During CB PVI in 4/224 patients (1.8%), a phrenic nerve palsy was observed. After 12 months, 78% of patients after RF-balloon and 81% of patients after CB PVI (p = 0.5) were free from atrial arrhythmias. Conclusion The RF-balloon was safe and effective. Compared with the CB, TTI was shorter, but procedure durations and fluoroscopy times were longer. This can be attributed to a learning curve and the initial necessity for separate 3D map preparation. Considering the results with the second-generation RF-balloon, more experience is needed to determine the potential benefits. Graphical Abstract