Arrhythmias & electrophysiology
Multielectrode catheter-based pulsed electric field vs. cryoballoon for atrial fibrillation ablation: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Authors' conclusion
Pulsed field ablation contributed to higher acute procedural success and safety compared with CRYO. No statistically significant differences in AT recurrence at 1-year follow-up were observed.
Study context
- Population
- Patients undergoing atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation20 pulsed field ablation (PFA) and 70 CRYO studies
- Comparison
- PFA vs second-/third-/fourth-generation cryoballoon ablation
- Outcome
- Acute procedural success on a vein and patient basis
Pooled result
As reported in the abstract
Acute success, vein basis
Acute success, per patient
- PFA vs CRYO: P < 0.001 — vein basis
- PFA vs CRYO: P < 0.001 — per patient
Further pooled results
Procedural time · shorter with PFA
P < 0.001
Fluoroscopy time · shorter with PFA
P < 0.001
Freedom from atrial tachyarrhythmias · 1 year
log-rank P = 0.61
Freedom from atrial tachyarrhythmias · 1 year
- No differences in freedom from atrial tachyarrhythmias (ATs) at 1 year
Safety
Overall periprocedural complications · lower with PFA
P < 0.001
Major periprocedural complications
P = 0.46
Major periprocedural complications
- No differences in major periprocedural complications
Original publication
Multielectrode catheter-based pulsed electric field vs. cryoballoon for atrial fibrillation ablation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Europace. Published 23 November 2024. doi:10.
Summarised from the published abstract; every number is checked against it