Safety and efficacy of cryoablation vs. radiofrequency ablation of septal accessory pathways: systematic review of the literature and meta-analyses

Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) of septal accessory pathways (APs) is associated with a significant rate of first procedure failures and complications. Cryoablation is an alternative energy source but there are no studies comparing both ablation techniques. We aimed to systematically review the literature and compare the efficacy and safety of cryoablation vs. RFA of septal APs.

We conducted two separate meta-analysis of cryoablation and RFA of septal APs and calculated the global estimates of the efficacy and safety. Sixty-four articles were included: 38 articles reporting RFA and 27 articles reporting cryoablation procedures. Additionally, we included the previously non-published cryoablation registry of septal APs performed at our institution. Overall, 4244 septal APs constitute our study population, 3495 in the RFA cohort and 749 in the cryoablation cohort. Acute procedural success rate of cryoablation was 86.0% (95% CI 81.6–89.4%) and RFA 89.0% (95% CI 86.8–91.0%). Recurrence rate of cryoablation was 18.1% (95% CI 14.8–21.8%) and RFA 9.9% (95% CI 8.2–12.0%). Long-term success rate after multiple ablation procedures of cryoablation was 75.9% (95% CI 68.2–82.3%) and RFA 88.4% (95% CI 84.7–91.3%). There were no reported cases of persistent atrioventricular block (AVB) with cryoablation and 2.7% (95% CI 2.2–3.4%) with RFA.

Studies of RFA for treatment of septal APs report higher efficacy rates than do studies using cryoablation, but a significantly higher rate of AVB.