Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although balloon-based ablation catheters are expected to improve the feasibility and quality of pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), they must be introduced to physicians in the proper setting to ensure their correct usage. OBJECTIVE: To identify the optimal clinical settings for learning the techniques for 3 balloon-based ablation catheters (Cryoballoon, Hotballoon, and Laserballoon). METHODS: We introduced 3 balloon catheters in 50 consecutive patients with paroxysmal AF each during the introduction periods. Clinical parameters were compared among the groups and between these groups and their steady-state controls. RESULTS: The completion rate of PVI by sole balloon procedures was 56% with the Hotballoon catheter, which was lower than those of the Cryoballoon and Laserballoon catheters (each 88%). Radiofrequency touch-up was most frequently required at the bottom aspect of the inferior pulmonary veins (PVs) in the Cryoballoon group and at the anterior aspect of the superior PVs in the Hotballoon and Laserballoon groups. The Laserballoon catheter had the longest average PVI procedural time (89.2 ± 40 vs 58.4 ± 22 minutes for Hotballoon, 65.1 ± 25 minutes for Cryoballoon, P < .001), but the difference was ultimately removed by the learning curve. There was no significant difference in the major complication or recurrence-free survival rates among the catheter types. CONCLUSIONS: All 3 balloon-based catheter types allowed feasibility and quality for PVI, even during the learning period. To introduce these new catheters without complications, an experiences of 20 cases with specific clinical settings should be met for each catheter type.