Cryoballoon vs radiofrequency ablation in persistent atrial fibrillation: the CRRF-PeAF trial

There are limited prospective data on the efficacy, safety, and impact on reverse remodelling of cryoballoon ablation as compared to radiofrequency ablation for persistent atrial fibrillation.

A prospective, multicentre, randomized, non-inferiority clinical trial was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of cryoballoon vs radiofrequency ablation for persistent atrial fibrillation. A total of 500 patients with persistent atrial fibrillation were randomized across 12 centres. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of atrial tachyarrhythmias at 1 year with a 90-day blanking period after ablation.

The final analysis included 499 patients, with a median age of 69 years (interquartile range, 61–74); 249 patients were allocated to the cryoballoon group, and 250 to the radiofrequency group. In the intention-to-treat analysis, the primary endpoint was observed in 56 patients (22.5%) in the cryoballoon group and 58 (23.2%) in the radiofrequency group, and the cryoballoon group demonstrated non-inferiority compared to the radiofrequency group for the primary endpoint (hazard ratio .99; 95% confidence interval, .69–1.43; P = .96). The radiofrequency group showed a greater reduction in left atrial size (left atrial volume index) at 1 year than the cryoballoon group [−11 mL/m² (interquartile range, −19 to −4) vs −4 mL/m² (interquartile range, −13 to 3), P < .001].

In this randomized trial, cryoballoon ablation was non-inferior to radiofrequency ablation for the occurrence of atrial tachyarrhythmias at 1 year in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation.