The Efficacy and Safety of Cryoballoon Versus Radiofrequency Ablation for the Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation: A Meta-Analysis of 15 International Randomized Trials.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of cryoballoon versus radiofrequency ablation for the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF) by systematically reviewing randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Databases of Pubmed, Web of science, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched for published studies up to June 31, 2022. Only RCTs comparing the efficacy and safety of cryoballoon vs radiofrequency ablation for the treatment of AF were enrolled in meta-analysis. Fifteen RCTs characterizing 2709 patients were finally included. Meta-analysis found that cryoballoon ablation was associated with a similar proportion of patients free from AF [risk ratio (RR): 1.02; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.93 to 1.12, P = 0.65]. Acute pulmonary vein isolation rate [RR: 1.0; 95% CI: 0.98 to 1.01, P = 0.64] and fluoroscopy time (weighted mean difference: -0.03; 95% CI: -4.35 to 4.28; P = 0.99) were not statistically significant difference. The procedure time was shorter in the cryoballoon ablation (CBA) group (weighted mean difference : -18.76; 95% CI: -27.27 to -10.25; P < 0.0001). Transient phrenic nerve palsy was uniquely observed in the CBA group (RR = 6.66; 95% CI: 2.82 to 15.7, P < 0.0001) and resolved in all during the follow-up period, total complication was similar in both groups (RR = 1.24; 95% CI: 0.86 to 1.79, P = 0.24). Although the procedure time was shorter in CBA group, the efficacy and safety were similar in each group. Compared with radiofrequency ablation for the treatment of AF, patients receiving cryoballoon ablation have similar outcomes. CBA is associated with a shorter duration of procedure.