Efficacy and Safety of Cryoballoon Versus Radiofrequency Ablation for Persistent Atrial Fibrillation: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Abstract

Managing persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) remains challenging due to its complex arrhythmic substrate, and pulmonary vein isolation through catheter ablation remains the primary treatment. This meta-analysis aims to compare the efficacy and safety outcomes of cryoballoon ablation (CBA) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in patients with persistent AF to provide evidence-based insights for clinical decision-making. A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CBA and RFA in persistent AF were included. Data on efficacy, safety, and procedural outcomes were pooled in the form of odds ratios (ORs) or mean differences (MDs) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using the random effects model in the Review Manager (RevMan) software. Four RCTs comprising 899 patients were included in our analysis. There were no significant differences between CBA and RFA in terms of AF recurrence, atrial tachycardia/flutter recurrence, or any arrhythmia recurrence during a mean follow-up period of 18 months after ablation. Procedure time was significantly shorter with CBA (MD: -44.85 minutes, 95% CI: -56.46 to -32.24, P < 0.01), while fluoroscopy time was comparable between the 2 groups (MD: 4.31 minutes, 95% CI: -1.79 to 10.40, P = 0.17). Safety outcomes, including overall complications, phrenic nerve palsy, access-site complications, and pericardial effusion, showed no significant differences between the 2 groups. CBA and RFA show similar rates of atrial arrhythmia recurrence and periprocedural complications in the treatment of persistent AF, while CBA offers the advantage of a shorter procedure time.