Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 26, 2025
Direct Pressure Monitoring Accurately Predicts Pulmonary Vein Occlusion During Cryoballoon Ablation
Published on: February 26, 2013
Technical and procedural comparison of two different cryoballoon ablation systems in patients with atrial
Sven Knecht1, Christian Sticherling1, Laurent Roten2
1Cardiology/Electrophysiology, University of Basel Hospital, Petersgraben 4 4031, Basel, Switzerland.
Purpose:
The aim was to report procedural and technical differences of a novel cryoballoon (NCB) ablation catheter for pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) compared to the standard cryoballoon (SCB) catheter.
Methods:
Consecutive patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) undergoing PVI using the NCB and the SCB were included. Procedural parameters, technical differences, acute efficacy, and safety are reported.
Results:
Eighty patients (age 66 ± 10 years, ejection fraction 57 ± 10%, left atrial volume index 40 ± 6 ml/m2) were studied. With the NCB, 156 of 158 PVs (99%) were isolated compared to isolation of 159 of 159 PVs (100%) with the SCB. The median number of freezes in the NCB and the SCB group was 6 (IQR 5-8) and 5 (IQR 4-7), respectively (p = 0.051), with 73% and 71% of the PVs isolated with a single freeze, respectively. Nadir temperature and temperature at isolation were - 59 ± 6 °C and - 45 ± 17 °C in the NCB group and - 46 ± 7 °C and - 32 ± 23 °C in the SCB group, respectively (both p < 0.001) with no difference in time to isolation (TTI). Procedural differences were observed for the total procedure time (84 ± 29 min in the NCB group and 65 ± 17 min in the SCB group, p = 0.003). There was a peri-procedural stroke in one patient in the NCB group. Differences in catheter design were observed that may account for the differences in temperature recordings and ice cap formation.
Conclusions:
Acute efficacy and TTI were similar with the NCB compared to the SCB. Measured temperatures were lower with the NCB, most likely due to differences in catheter design.
