Abstract 16760: Comparing Major Complications Between Radiofrequency and Cryoballoon Ablation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Abstract

Introduction: Catheter ablation has become the cornerstone for the treatment of drug-refractory paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. Two main forms of energy are used: cryoablation (CB) and radiofrequency (RF). Multiple studies have compared the effectiveness/safety curve between these two; among which is the FIRE AND ICE and the FREEZE AF trials which showed non-inferiority between these two technologies. Despite the remarkable success achieved at controlling arrythmias, complications as high as 16.3% have been reported in both technologies. Objectives: The main purpose of this meta-analysis is to compare the incidence of esophageal and myocardial injuries among patients undergoing radiofrequency ablation vs cryoablation for the treatment of atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter (AF). Methods/Results: We searched Pubmed/Embase, Medline and Cochrane from inception to April 2020 for studies that met our predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. All studies comparing RFA to CBA and reporting the incidence of life-threatening complications (esophageal injuries and perforation/tamponade) were included in our analysis. To limit confounding variables and significant heterogeneity between studies, we selected only randomized-control trials and propensity-matched observational studies. A total of 2748 patients were identified. Overall analyses show that RFA has significantly higher life-threatening complications than CBA (OR = 2.79, 95% CI: 1.41-5.52; p=0.003). Conclusion: The present systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrates that RFA has 3 times more life-threatening complications than CBA. As previous studies have already shown similar degree of freedom from AF between these two ablation technologies, CBA appears to be more advantageous overall.