Phrenic nerve and esophageal injury in pulsed field ablation versus radiofrequency and cryoablation

脉冲场消融术与射频消融术和冷冻消融术相比,膈神经和食管损伤的发生率

阅读:1

Abstract

Background: Phrenic nerve injury (PNI) and esophageal injury are serious complications associated with atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation procedures. Pulsed field ablation (PFA), a non-thermal modality, has emerged as a promising alternative to conventional thermal ablation techniques, such as radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and cryoballoon ablation (CBA). Objective: To evaluate and compare the incidence of PNI and esophageal injury following PFA, RFA, and CBA in patients undergoing AF ablation. Methods: A systematic search of The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, and EMBASE databases was conducted for studies published between 2014 and 2024. Cohort and case-control studies comparing PFA with RFA and/or CBA in relation to PNI and esophageal injury were included. Risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model. Results: Eleven studies involving 4,603 patients were included in the analysis. The incidence of PNI was 0.23% with PFA, 0.63% with RFA, and 2.68% with CBA, respectively. A meta-analysis of five studies comparing PFA and CBA showed a significantly lower risk of PNI with PFA (RR 0.13, 95% CI [0.04-0.35]; p < 0.0001). No esophageal injury was reported in the PFA group, compared to 2.79% in the RFA group and 1.45% in the CBA group. Pooled analysis demonstrated that PFA significantly reduced the risk of esophageal injury compared to RFA (RR 0.06, 95% CI [0.01-0.29]; p = 0.0005) and CBA (RR 0.07, 95% CI [0.01-0.39]; p = 0.002). Conclusion: PFA is associated with a significantly lower risk of phrenic nerve and esophageal injury than RFA and CBA.

特别声明

1、本页面内容包含部分的内容是基于公开信息的合理引用;引用内容仅为补充信息,不代表本站立场。

2、若认为本页面引用内容涉及侵权,请及时与本站联系,我们将第一时间处理。

3、其他媒体/个人如需使用本页面原创内容,需注明“来源:[生知库]”并获得授权;使用引用内容的,需自行联系原作者获得许可。

4、投稿及合作请联系:info@biocloudy.com。