Introduction: Data on first-line ablation treatment for patients with symptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF) are scarce. This study indirectly compared the efficacy and safety of cryoballoon ablation (CBA) vs. radiofrequency ablation (RFA) as initial therapy for symptomatic AF.
Methods: We searched the EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared CBA or RFA with antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) as first-line treatment for AF from the time of database establishment up to December 2021. The odds ratio (OR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) was used as a measure of the treatment effect.
Results: Six RCTs (3 CBA, 3 RFA) that enrolled a total of 1215 patients were included in this analysis. There were no significant differences in atrial arrhythmia (AA) (OR 0.993, 95% CI 0.602–1.638), symptomatic AA (OR 0.638, 95% CI 0.344–1.182), or serious adverse events (OR 1.474, 95% CI, 0.404–5.376) between the two ablation techniques. The incidences of additional CBA therapy (OR 2.693, 95% CI 1.277–5.681) and patients who crossed over to AAD therapy (OR 0.345 95% CI 0.179–0.664) in the CBA group were significantly lower than that in the RFA group.
Conclusion: Among patients with paroxysmal AF receiving initial therapy, CBA and RFA share a similar efficacy and safety profile. When pulmonary vein isolation is performed by CBA, study crossover and the need for additional ablation are substantially lower.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.