Chao-Feng Chen1, Xiao-Fei Gao1, Xu Duan1, Bin Chen1, Xiao-Hua Liu1, Yi-Zhou Xu2,3. 1. Hangzhou First People's Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, #261 Huansha Road, Shangcheng District, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China. 2. Hangzhou First People's Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, #261 Huansha Road, Shangcheng District, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China. njmuzhujue@126.com. 3. Department of Cardiology, Hangzhou Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, #261 Huansha Road, Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, China. njmuzhujue@126.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The present systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess and compare the safety and efficacy of radiofrequency (RF) and cryoballoon (CB) ablation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF). RF and CB ablation are two frequently used methods for pulmonary vein isolation in PAF, but which is a better choice for PAF remains uncertain. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted in Medline, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library. All trials comparing RF and CB ablation were screened and included if the inclusion criteria were met. RESULTS: A total of 38 eligible studies, 9 prospective randomized or randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and 29 non- RCTs were identified, adding up to 15,496 patients. Pool analyses indicated that CB ablation was more beneficial in terms of procedural time [standard mean difference = -0.58; 95% confidence interval (CI), -0.85 to -0.30], complications without phrenic nerve injury (PNI) [odds ratio (OR) = 0.79; 95% CI, 0.67-0.93; I 2 = 16%], and recrudescence (OR = 0.83; 95% CI, 0.70-0.97; I 2 = 63%) for PAF; however, the total complications of CB was higher than RF. The subgroup analysis found that, compared with non-contact force radiofrequency (non-CF-RF), both first-generation cryoballoon (CB1) and second-generation cryoballoon (CB2) ablation could reduce complications with PNI, procedural time, and recrudescence. However, the safety and efficacy of CB2 was similar to those of CF-RF. CONCLUSION: Available overall and subgroup data suggested that both CB1 and CB2 were more beneficial than RF ablation, and the main advantages were reflected in comparing them with non-CF-RF. However, CF-RF and CB2 showed similar clinical benefits.
PURPOSE: The present systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess and compare the safety and efficacy of radiofrequency (RF) and cryoballoon (CB) ablation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF). RF and CB ablation are two frequently used methods for pulmonary vein isolation in PAF, but which is a better choice for PAF remains uncertain. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted in Medline, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library. All trials comparing RF and CB ablation were screened and included if the inclusion criteria were met. RESULTS: A total of 38 eligible studies, 9 prospective randomized or randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and 29 non- RCTs were identified, adding up to 15,496 patients. Pool analyses indicated that CB ablation was more beneficial in terms of procedural time [standard mean difference = -0.58; 95% confidence interval (CI), -0.85 to -0.30], complications without phrenic nerve injury (PNI) [odds ratio (OR) = 0.79; 95% CI, 0.67-0.93; I 2 = 16%], and recrudescence (OR = 0.83; 95% CI, 0.70-0.97; I 2 = 63%) for PAF; however, the total complications of CB was higher than RF. The subgroup analysis found that, compared with non-contact force radiofrequency (non-CF-RF), both first-generation cryoballoon (CB1) and second-generation cryoballoon (CB2) ablation could reduce complications with PNI, procedural time, and recrudescence. However, the safety and efficacy of CB2 was similar to those of CF-RF. CONCLUSION: Available overall and subgroup data suggested that both CB1 and CB2 were more beneficial than RF ablation, and the main advantages were reflected in comparing them with non-CF-RF. However, CF-RF and CB2 showed similar clinical benefits.
Authors: Craig T January; L Samuel Wann; Joseph S Alpert; Hugh Calkins; Joaquin E Cigarroa; Joseph C Cleveland; Jamie B Conti; Patrick T Ellinor; Michael D Ezekowitz; Michael E Field; Katherine T Murray; Ralph L Sacco; William G Stevenson; Patrick J Tchou; Cynthia M Tracy; Clyde W Yancy Journal: Circulation Date: 2014-03-28 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Jeremiah Wasserlauf; Daniel J Pelchovitz; John Rhyner; Nishant Verma; Martha Bohn; Zhi Li; Rishi Arora; Alexandru B Chicos; Jeffrey J Goldberger; Susan S Kim; Albert C Lin; Bradley P Knight; Rod S Passman Journal: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol Date: 2015-01-28 Impact factor: 1.976
Authors: Boris Schmidt; Melanie Gunawardene; Detlef Krieg; Stefano Bordignon; Alexander Fürnkranz; Mehmet Kulikoglu; Wilfried Herrmann; K R Julian Chun Journal: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol Date: 2013-04-18
Authors: Markus Linhart; Barbara Bellmann; Erica Mittmann-Braun; Jan W Schrickel; Alexander Bitzen; René Andrié; Alexander Yang; Georg Nickenig; Lars Lickfett; Thorsten Lewalter Journal: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol Date: 2009-12
Authors: Finn Akerström; Hamid Bastani; Per Insulander; Jonas Schwieler; Miguel A Arias; Mats Jensen-Urstad Journal: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol Date: 2014-05-02
Authors: Andrzej Glowniak; Adam Tarkowski; Katarzyna Wojewoda; Katarzyna Wysokinska; Mariusz Kozak; Piotr Wacinski; Andrzej Wysokinski Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2019-10-02 Impact factor: 4.241