Cryoballoon vs. radiofrequency ablation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: an updated meta-analysis of randomized and observational studies

Aims Radiofrequency (RF) ablation represents a standard of care for pulmonary vein isolation in patients with drug-refractory paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF). In this setting, cryoballoon (CB) ablation has emerged as alternative therapy. However, the efficacy and safety of CB vs. RF ablation in patients with paroxysmal AF remain a matter of debate. Methods and results We searched electronic scientific databases for studies of CB vs. RF ablation in patients with paroxysmal AF. Aggregate data were pooled to perform a meta-analysis. The primary efficacy and safety outcomes were the recurrence of any atrial arrhythmia and procedure-related complications, respectively. A total of 6473 participants from 10 studies (CB, n = 2232 vs. RF, n = 4241) were studied. After a median follow-up of 16 months, the risk of any atrial arrhythmia recurrence (risk ratio, RR 95% confidence interval [95% CI] = 1.01 [0.90-1.14], P = 0.83) and procedure-related complications (RR [95% CI] = 0.92 [0.66-1.28], P = 0.61) were comparable between CB vs. RF ablation. Cryoballoon ablation led to a higher risk of persistent phrenic nerve palsy (RR [95% CI] = 13.60 [3.87-47.81], P < 0.01) and a lower risk of cardiac tamponade (RR [95% CI] = 0.48 [0.25-0.89], P = 0.02) compared with RF ablation. There was a trend of statistically significant interaction between the type of CB and the duration of ablation (P for interaction = 0.09). Conclusion In patients with paroxysmal AF, ablation therapy with CB is associated with efficacy and safety comparable to that of RF. Second-generation CB catheters seem to reduce procedure duration. Further studies are warranted to disclose the impact of second-generation CB catheters compared with RF for ablation of paroxysmal AF.