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) versus 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 1,215 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 those 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.
Keywords: Antiarrhythmic drugs; Atrial fibrillation; Cryoballoon ablation; Initial therapy; Radiofrequency ablation.
© 2023 S. Karger AG, Basel.