Comparison of catheter ablation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation between cryoballoon and radiofrequency: a meta-analysis
- 1k Downloads
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.
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.
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.
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.
KeywordsClinical benefit Cryoballoon ablation Meta-analysis Paroxysmal atrial fibrillation Radiofrequency ablation
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.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors have reported to JICE that there was not potential conflicts of interest exist in this article.
This study was supported by authors themselves without any other funding.
There were not any ethics problems in our paper.
- 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle 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.Google Scholar
- 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle 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.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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle 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.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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar