Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of catheter ablation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation between cryoballoon and radiofrequency: a meta-analysis

  • REVIEWS
  • Published:
Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. January CT, Wann LS, Alpert JS, Calkins H, Cigarroa JE, Cleveland JC, et al. 2014 AHA/ACC/HRS guideline for the management of patients with atrial fibrillation: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on practice guidelines and the Heart Rhythm Society. Circulation. 2014;130:e199–267.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Haissaguerre M, Jais P, Shah DC, Takahashi A, Hocini M, Quiniou G, et al. Spontaneous initiation of atrial fibrillation by ectopic beats originating in the pulmonary veins. N Engl J Med. 1998;339:659–66.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Verma A, Jiang CY, Betts TR, Chen J, Deisenhofer I, Mantovan R, et al. Approaches to catheter ablation for persistent atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:1812–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Hunter RJ, Baker V, Finlay MC, Duncan ER, Lovell MJ, Tayebjee MH, et al. Point-by-point radiofrequency ablation versus the cryoballoon or a novel combined approach: a randomized trial comparing 3 methods of pulmonary vein isolation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (the cryo versus RF trial). J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2015;26:1307–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Kuck KH, Brugada J, Furnkranz A, Metzner A, Ouyang F, Chun KR, et al. Cryoballoon or radiofrequency ablation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2016;374:2235–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Perez-Castellano N, Fernandez-Cavazos R, Moreno J, Canadas V, Conde A, Gonzalez-Ferrer JJ, et al. The COR trial: a randomized study with continuous rhythm monitoring to compare the efficacy of cryoenergy and radiofrequency for pulmonary vein isolation. Heart Rhythm : Off J Heart Rhythm Soc. 2014;11:8–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Koch L, Haeusler KG, Herm J, Safak E, Fischer R, Malzahn U, et al. Mesh ablator vs. cryoballoon pulmonary vein ablation of symptomatic paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: results of the MACPAF study. Europace. 2012;14:1441–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Khoueiry Z, Albenque JP, Providencia R, Combes S, Combes N, Jourda F, et al. Outcomes after cryoablation vs. radiofrequency in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: impact of pulmonary veins anatomy. Europace. 2016;18:1343–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Akerstrom F, Bastani H, Insulander P, Schwieler J, Arias MA, Jensen-Urstad M. Comparison of regular atrial tachycardia incidence after circumferential radiofrequency versus cryoballoon pulmonary vein isolation in real-life practice. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2014;25:948–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Jourda F, Providencia R, Marijon E, Bouzeman A, Hireche H, Khoueiry Z, et al. Contact-force guided radiofrequency vs. second-generation balloon cryotherapy for pulmonary vein isolation in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation-a prospective evaluation. Europace. 2015;17:225–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Luik A, Radzewitz A, Kieser M, Walter M, Bramlage P, Hormann P, et al. Cryoballoon versus open irrigated radiofrequency ablation in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: the prospective, randomized, controlled, noninferiority freezeAF study. Circulation. 2015;132:1311–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Pokushalov E, Romanov A, Artyomenko S, Baranova V, Losik D, Bairamova S, et al. Cryoballoon versus radiofrequency for pulmonary vein re-isolation after a failed initial ablation procedure in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2013;24:274–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Squara F, Zhao A, Marijon E, Latcu DG, Providencia R, Di Giovanni G, et al. Comparison between radiofrequency with contact force-sensing and second-generation cryoballoon for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation catheter ablation: a multicentre European evaluation. Europace. 2015;17:718–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Wasserlauf J, Pelchovitz DJ, Rhyner J, Verma N, Bohn M, Li Z, et al. Cryoballoon versus radiofrequency catheter ablation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol: PACE. 2015;38:483–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Straube F, Dorwarth U, Ammar-Busch S, Peter T, Noelker G, Massa T, et al. First-line catheter ablation of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: outcome of radiofrequency vs. cryoballoon pulmonary vein isolation. Europace. 2016;18:368–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA. 2000;283:2008–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet (London, England). 1999;354:1896–900.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Chierchia GB, Capulzini L, Droogmans S, Sorgente A, Sarkozy A, Muller-Burri A, et al. Pericardial effusion in atrial fibrillation ablation: a comparison between cryoballoon and radiofrequency pulmonary vein isolation. Europace. 2010;12:337–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Defaye P, Kane A, Jacon P, Mondesert B. Cryoballoon for pulmonary vein isolation: is it better tolerated than radiofrequency? Retrospective study comparing the use of analgesia and sedation in both ablation techniques. Arch Cardiovasc Dis. 2010;103:388–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Gaita F, Leclercq JF, Schumacher B, Scaglione M, Toso E, et al. Incidence of silent cerebral thromboembolic lesions after atrial fibrillation ablation may change according to technology used: comparison of irrigated radiofrequency, multipolar nonirrigated catheter and cryoballoon. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2011;22:961–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Herm J, Fiebach JB, Koch L, Kopp UA, Kunze C, Wollboldt C, et al. Neuropsychological effects of MRI-detected brain lesions after left atrial catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation: long-term results of the MACPAF study. Circ Arrhythmia Electrophysiol. 2013;6:843–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Schmidt B, Gunawardene M, Krieg D, Bordignon S, Furnkranz A, Kulikoglu M, et al. A prospective randomized single-center study on the risk of asymptomatic cerebral lesions comparing irrigated radiofrequency current ablation with the cryoballoon and the laser balloon. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2013;24:869–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Tse HF, Kwong YL, Lau CP. Transvenous cryoablation reduces platelet activation during pulmonary vein ablation compared with radiofrequency energy in patients with atrial fibrillation. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2005;16:1064–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Attanasio P, Huemer M, Shokor Parwani A, Boldt LH, Mügge A, Haverkamp W, et al. Pain reactions during pulmonary vein isolation under deep sedation: cryothermal versus radiofrequency ablation. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2016;39(5):452–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Antolič B, Pernat A, Cvijić M, Žižek D, Jan M, Šinkovec M. Radiofrequency catheter ablation versus balloon cryoablation of atrial fibrillation: markers of myocardial damage, inflammation, and thrombogenesis. Wien Klin Wochenschr. 2016;128(13–14):480–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Hofmann R, Honig S, Leisch F, Steinwender C. Pulmonary vein isolation with Mesh Ablator versus cryoballoon catheters: 6-month outcomes. J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2010;29:179–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Knecht S, Sticherling C, von Felten S, Conen D, Schaer B, Ammann P, et al. Long-term comparison of cryoballoon and radiofrequency ablation of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: a propensity score matched analysis. Int J Cardiol. 2014;176:645–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Kuhne M, Suter Y, Altmann D, Ammann P, Schaer B, Osswald S, et al. Cryoballoon versus radiofrequency catheter ablation of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: biomarkers of myocardial injury, recurrence rates, and pulmonary vein reconnection patterns. Heart Rhythm: Off J Heart Rhythm Soc. 2010;7:1770–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Miyazaki S, Kuroi A, Hachiya H, Nakamura H, Taniguchi H, Ichihara N, et al. Early recurrence after pulmonary vein isolation of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation with different ablation technologies—prospective comparison of radiofrequency vs. second-generation cryoballoon ablation. Circ J. 2016;80:346–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Providencia R, Defaye P, Lambiase PD, Pavin D, Cebron JP, Halimi F, et al. Results from a multicentre comparison of cryoballoon vs. radiofrequency ablation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: is cryoablation more reproducible? Europace. 2016.

  31. Kardos A, Kis Z, Som Z, Nagy Z, Foldesi C. Two-year follow-up after contact force sensing radiofrequency catheter and second-generation cryoballoon ablation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: a comparative single centre study. Biomed Res Int. 2016;2016:6495753.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Neumann T, Kuniss M, Conradi G, Janin S, Berkowitsch A, Wojcik M, et al. MEDAFI-Trial (Micro-embolization during ablation of atrial fibrillation): comparison of pulmonary vein isolationusing cryoballoon technique vs. radiofrequency energy. Europace. 2011;13(1):37–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Herrera Siklódy C, Arentz T, Minners J, Jesel L, Stratz C, Valina CM, et al. Cellular damage, platelet activation, and inflammatory response after pulmonary vein isolation: randomized study comparing radiofrequency ablation with cryoablation. Heart Rhythm. 2012;9(2):189–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Julia J, Chierchia GB, de Asmundis C, Mugnai G, Sieira J, Ciconte G, et al. Regular atrial tachycardias following pulmonary vein isolation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: a retrospective comparison between the cryoballoon and conventional focal tip radiofrequency techniques. J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2015;42:161–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Linhart M, Bellmann B, Mittmann-Braun E, Schrickel JW, Bitzen A, Andrie R, et al. Comparison of cryoballoon and radiofrequency ablation of pulmonary veins in 40 patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: a case–control study. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2009;20:1343–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Mugnai G, Chierchia GB, de Asmundis C, Sieira-Moret J, Conte G, Capulzini L, et al. Comparison of pulmonary vein isolation using cryoballoon versus conventional radiofrequency for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. Am J Cardiol. 2014;113:1509–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Schmidt M, Dorwarth U, Andresen D, Brachmann J, Kuck KH, Kuniss M, et al. Cryoballoon versus RF ablation in paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: results from the German Ablation Registry. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2014;25:1–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Kojodjojo P, O’Neill MD, Lim PB, Malcolm-Lawes L, Whinnett ZI, Salukhe TV, et al. Pulmonary venous isolation by atrial ablation with a large cryoballoon for treatment of paroxysmal and persistent atrial fibrillation: medium-term outcomes and non-randomised comparison with pulmonary venous isolation by radiofrequency ablation. Heart. 2010;96(17):1379–84.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Schmidt M, Dorwarth U, Andresen D, Brachmann J, Kuck K, Kuniss M. German Ablation Registry: cryoballoon versus RF ablation in paroxysmal atrial fibrillation—one year outcome data. Heart Rhythm. 2016;13(4):836–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Nagy Z, Kis Z, Som Z, Földesi C, Kardos A. Catheter ablation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: new generation cryoballoon or contact force sensing radiofrequency ablation? Orv Hetil. 2016;157(22):849–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Aryana A, Singh SM, Kowalski M, Pujara DK, Cohen AI, Singh SK, et al. Acute and long-term outcomes of catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation using the second-generation cryoballoon versus open-irrigated radiofrequency: a multicenter experience. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2015;26(8):832–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Aryana A, Singh SM, Mugnai G, de Asmundis C, Kowalski M, Pujara DK, et al. Pulmonary vein reconnection following catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation using the second-generation cryoballoon versus open-irrigated radiofrequency: results of a multicenter analysis. J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2016.

  43. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986;7:177–88.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Bowden J, Tierney JF, Copas AJ, Burdett S. Quantifying, displaying and accounting for heterogeneity in the meta-analysis of RCTs using standard and generalised Q statistics. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011;11:41.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. DeVille JB, Svinarich JT, Dan D, Wickliffe A, Kantipudi C, Lim HW, et al. Comparison of resource utilization of pulmonary vein isolation: cryoablation versus RF ablation with three-dimensional mapping in the value PVI study. J Invasive Cardiol. 2014;26(6):268–72.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Furnkranz A, Brugada J, Albenque JP, Tondo C, Bestehorn K, Wegscheider K, et al. Rationale and design of FIRE AND ICE: a multicenter randomized trial comparing efficacy and safety of pulmonary vein isolation using a cryoballoon versus radiofrequency ablation with 3D-reconstruction. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2014;25:1314–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Liu XH, Chen CF, Gao XF, Xu YZ. Safety and efficacy of different catheter ablations for atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2016;39(8):883–99.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Cardoso R, Mendirichaga R, Fernandes G, Healy C, Lambrakos LK, Viles-Gonzalez JF, et al. Cryoballoon versus radiofrequency catheter ablation in atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2016;16.

  49. Liu J, Kaufmann J, Kriatselis C, Fleck E, Gerds-Li JH. Second generation of cryoballoons can improve efficiency of cryoablation for atrial fibrillation. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2015;38(1):129–35.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Aryana A, Morkoch S, Bailey S, Lim HW, Sara R, d’Avila A, et al. Acute procedural and cryoballoon characteristics from cryoablation of atrial fibrillation using the first- and second-generation cryoballoon: a retrospective comparative study with follow-up outcomes. J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2014;41(2):177–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Kimura M, Sasaki S, Owada S, Horiuchi D, Sasaki K, Itoh T. Comparison of lesion formation between contact force-guided and non-guided circumferential pulmonary vein isolation: a prospective, randomized study. Heart Rhythm. 2014;11:984–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Marijon E, Fazaa S, Narayanan K, Guy-Moyat B, Bouzeman A, Providencia R, et al. Real-time contact force sensing for pulmonary vein isolation in the setting of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: procedural and 1-year results. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2014;25:130–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Yokoyama K, Nakagawa H, Shah DC, Lambert H, Leo G, Aeby N, et al. Novel contact force sensor incorporated in irrigated radiofrequency ablation catheter predicts lesion size and incidence of steam pop and thrombus. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2008;1:354–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Dr Chao-feng Chen: contributed to design of this work, statistical analysis and write the manuscript, Bin Chen: contributed to evalute quality and retrieved the required data, Xiao-fei Gao and Xiao-hua Liu: contributed to reviewed the literature, performed the selection of the studies and helped gather references for the manuscript. Dr Yi-zhou Xu: contributed to design of this work, revised and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Hangzhou First People’s Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, #261 Huansha Road, Shangcheng District, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China

    Chao-feng Chen, Xiao-fei Gao, Xu Duan, Bin Chen, Xiao-hua Liu & Yi-zhou Xu

  2. Department of Cardiology, Hangzhou Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, #261 Huansha Road, Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, China

    Yi-zhou Xu

Authors
  1. Chao-feng Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Xiao-fei Gao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Xu Duan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Bin Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Xiao-hua Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Yi-zhou Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yi-zhou Xu.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have reported to JICE that there was not potential conflicts of interest exist in this article.

Funding

This study was supported by authors themselves without any other funding.

Ethics

There were not any ethics problems in our paper.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chen, Cf., Gao, Xf., Duan, X. et al. Comparison of catheter ablation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation between cryoballoon and radiofrequency: a meta-analysis. J Interv Card Electrophysiol 48, 351–366 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10840-016-0220-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10840-016-0220-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation