Cryoballoon Versus Radiofrequency Ablation for Persistent Atrial Fibrillation: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.
Harroop Bola, Aksaan Arif, Joshua J Hon et al.
✦ AI-curated · Sources linked
In 30 seconds
This systematic review and meta-analysis of five randomized controlled trials compared cryoballoon ablation (CBA) with radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in 1,091 patients with persistent atrial fibrillation. At 12 months, freedom from any atrial arrhythmia was comparable between approaches (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.81-1.15; p = 0.71), as were repeat-ablation rates. CBA reduced procedural time (MD -45.37 min; p < 0.0001), while major complication rates did not differ significantly. The authors conclude that the procedures have equivalent 12-month arrhythmia outcomes, with CBA offering greater procedural efficiency.
Key findings
- Freedom from any atrial arrhythmia was similar with CBA and RFA (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.81-1.15; p = 0.71).
- Time-to-event analysis found comparable recurrence hazard (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.67-1.24; p = 0.56; I 2 = 0%).
- CBA shortened procedural time (MD -45.37 min; p < 0.0001).
- Major complications were comparable (1.5% vs. 2.7%; p = 0.18), and repeat-ablation rates did not differ significantly (RR 0.93; p = 0.50).
Why it matters
For persistent atrial fibrillation, these pooled randomized data suggest that the two ablation approaches provide similar arrhythmia outcomes at 12 months, while CBA takes less procedural time. This helps frame the trade-off between procedural efficiency and clinical efficacy. The findings do not establish long-term equivalence, given the limited follow-up and variation in rhythm surveillance noted by the authors.
What to keep in mind
Follow-up was limited to 12 months, and rhythm surveillance protocols were heterogeneous, potentially limiting assessment of long-term durability.