Comparing radiofrequency and cryoballoon technology for the ablation of atrial fibrillation

Purpose of review With the growing popularity of the cryoballoon tool for catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation, there has been discussion of whether cryothermal energy is just as or more effective than traditional radiofrequency. This review will compare both thermal energies for the treatment of atrial fibrillation. Recent findings Although the FIRE and ICE trial established that cryoballoon technology is noninferior to radiofrequency ablation for the treatment of atrial fibrillation, both thermal technologies have undergone advancement. This review intends to explore recent changes in technology and catheter ablation technique to improve outcomes for patients with atrial fibrillation. Summary Catheter ablation is standard treatment for patients with atrial fibrillation, which primarily focuses on electrical isolation of the pulmonary veins. Radiofrequency is the most common approach at present times; however, over time, new technology has developed. Most successful among these is the cryoballoon tool. Although the FIRE and ICE trial indicated radiofrequency and cryothermal energy to be approximately equal in efficacy and safety, there are advantages and disadvantages to both. This review seeks to address the value of each tool, as well as further development needed to better address atrial fibrillation while improving procedural safety.