Cryoablation vs. radiofrequency ablation for treatment of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Cryoablation is a promising alternative technique to RF ablation for treating paroxysmal AF with encouraging results. However, data about the efficacy and safety comparison between cryoablation and RF ablation is still lacking.

We systematically search the PubMed, the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE and Google Scholar databases, and finally identify 16 eligible studies including 7195 patients (2863 for cryoablation; 4332 for RF ablation). Freedom from AF/atrial tachycardial replase is slightly higher in cryoablation than RF ablation during a median 12 months of follow-up, with no statistical significant (RR: 1.05, 95% CI: 0.98–1.13, P = 0.159). In cryoablation, the procedure time is substantially shortened (WMD: −27.66, 95% CI: −45.24 to − 10.08, P = 0.002), whereas the fluoroscopy time is identical to RF ablation (WMD: −0.37, 95% CI: −2.78 to 2.04, P = 0.763). Procedure-related adverse events in cryoablation are parallel with that in RF ablation (RR: 1.08, 95% CI: 0.86–1.35, P = 0.159).

Compared with RF ablation, cryoablation present a comparable long-term AF/atrial tachycardial-free survival and procedure-related adverse events. Meanwhile, cryoablation markedly shorten the procedure time, nonetheless, with negligible impact on the fluoroscopy time.