Skip to main content
The Egyptian Heart Journal
Download PDF

Efficacy and safety of radiofrequency ablation versus cryoballoon ablation for persistent atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

The Egyptian Heart Journal volume 76, Article number: 89 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Persistent Atrial Fibrillation (PeAF) is a challenging case for rhythm control modalities. Catheter ablation is the mainstay in PeAF management; however, data regarding the comparative safety and efficacy of cryoballoon ablation (CBA) versus radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for PeAF is still limited. We aim to compare the safety and efficacy of CBA versus RFA for PeAF ablation.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis synthesizing randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which were retrieved by systematically searching PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, SCOPUS, and Cochrane through October 2023. RevMan version 5.4 software was used to pool dichotomous data using risk ratio (RR) and continuous data using mean difference (MD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). PROSPERO ID: CRD42023480314.

Results

Three RCTs with 400 patients were included. There was no significant difference between RFA and CBA regarding AF recurrence (RR: 0.77, 95% CI [0.50, 1.20], P = 0.25), atrial tachycardia or atrial flutter recurrence (RR: 0.54, 95% CI [0.11, 2.76], P = 0.46), and any arrhythmia recurrence (RR: 0.96, 95% CI [0.70, 1.31], P = 0.80). CBA was significantly associated with decreased total procedure duration (MD: − 45.34, 95% CI [− 62.68, − 28.00], P < 0.00001), with no significant difference in fluoroscopy duration (MD: 3.59, 95% CI [− 5.13, 12.31], P = 0.42). Safety parameters were similar in both groups, including the incidence of any complications, phrenic nerve palsy (RR: 2.91 with 95% CI [0.31, 27.54], P = 0.35), access site complications (RR: 0.33 with 95% CI [0.05, 2.03], P = 0.23), and pericardial effusion.

Conclusions

In PeAF catheter ablation, CBA is comparable to RFA in terms of safety and efficacy. Also, CBA is associated with a shorter total procedure duration.

Background

In the last 50 years, the prevalence and incidence of atrial fibrillation (AF) have been on the rise, attributed to increasing global life expectancy [1]. Alongside this trend, diagnostic and treatment approaches for AF have been evolving. Despite this progress, the exact etiology of AF remains incompletely understood, though substantial evidence points to ectopic electrical activity in and around the pulmonary veins (PV). As a result, PV isolation has become the cornerstone of catheter-based AF treatment [2,3,4].

Currently, two primary approaches are employed to achieve PV isolation. The first is radiofrequency ablation (RFA), which utilizes radio waves to create a conduction block, enhancing the isolation of the PV. The second approach is cryoballoon ablation (CBA), where liquified nitrogen is used to scar arrhythmic tissue [5]. Numerous studies have compared the efficacy of RFA and CBA in treating paroxysmal AF, with many demonstrating no significant clinical outcome differences. Furthermore, several studies reported no difference in the recurrence rate of atrial tachyarrhythmia [6,7,8]. However, for patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (PeAF), which is considered very challenging to treat and has a high recurrence rate following ablation, limited data are available regarding the effectiveness and recurrence rate of RFA vs. CBA in this population [9, 10]. The most recent randomized controlled trial (RCT), conducted by Mililis et al., suggested that RFA is comparable to CBA regarding recurrence rate. Still, it highlighted that CBA is associated with decreased procedural duration in patients with PeAF [11].

A systematic review exploring the efficacy and safety of CBA vs. RFA was published in 2022, including one RCT and nine observational studies [12]. However, two new RCTs comparing RFA vs. CBA have been recently published, which we included in this paper to be systematically reviewed [11, 13]. In this systematic review, we aim to evaluate the efficacy and safety of RFA vs. CBA regarding arrhythmia recurrence, freedom from arrhythmia, total procedure time, ablation time, fluoroscopy time, and the need for repeated ablations.

Methods

Protocol registration

The current study was rigorously constructed to comply with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement guidelines for systematic reviews and meta-analysis [14] and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines [15]. This meta-analysis was prospectively registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) under ID: CRD42023480314.

Data sources & search strategy

A comprehensive literature search was conducted through PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Embase up to October 2023. A systematic approach was employed to include only RCTs. The search methodology executed involved the application of the following search terms: (“Radiofrequency Ablation”, “Radio Frequency Ablation”, “Radiofrequency”, “Radio Frequency”) AND (“Cryoballoon ablation”, “Cryoballoon”) AND (“persistent atrial fibrillation”, “persistent afib”, “persistent AF”), further details are highlighted in (Additional file 1: Table S1).

Eligibility criteria

We included RCTs following Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes (PICO) criteria: population (P): patients with PeAF undergoing first ablation; intervention (I): RFA; control (C): CBA; outcome (O): our primary outcomes were AF recurrence, recurrence of atrial tachycardia/atrial flutter, and arrhythmia recurrence, while secondary outcomes were: total procedure time, fluoroscopy time, repeated ablation, and safety outcomes (any complications, phrenic nerve palsy, access site complications, and pericardial tamponade), while exclusion criteria involved observational studies, abstracts, and animal studies.

Study selection

After saving the records from searching the previously mentioned databases using our search strategy in Covidence, two reviewers (A.H. and A.S.) independently screened the title and abstract, then the full text of the resulting records per our previously mentioned eligibility criteria. Any discrepancies were solved by a third author (A.M.A. and M.A.).

Data extraction

Two reviewers independently extracted the data of the included studies in a Microsoft Excel sheet (A.H. and A.S.). Any discrepancies were solved by a third author (A.M.A. and M.A.). Extracted data encompassed study characteristics (study design, country, number of centers, the total number of patients in the study, details about both the radiofrequency and the cryoballoon ablation groups, main inclusion criteria, and the span of follow-up); baseline patient characteristics (number of patients in the radiofrequency and cryoballoon ablation groups, gender (male), age (years), body mass index (BMI), CHA2DS2VASc score, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), left atrium diameter, medications history (beta-blockers and amiodarone), and comorbidities (hypertension, diabetes mellitus, coronary artery disease, obstructive sleep apnea, dyslipidemia); and outcomes (AF recurrence, recurrence of atrial tachycardia/atrial flutter, arrhythmia recurrence, repeated ablation, total procedure time, and fluoroscopy time, and safety outcomes (any complications, phrenic nerve palsy, access site complications, and pericardial tamponade)). Any discrepancies were resolved through discussion.

Risk of bias and certainty of evidence

We utilized the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2) [16] to evaluate the risk of bias in the included RCTs. This evaluation encompassed an assessment of the randomization process, concealment of the allocation sequence, deviations from the intended interventions, utilization of appropriate analysis to estimate the effect of assignment to intervention, measurement of the outcome, selection of the reported results, and overall risk of bias. The assessment of the methodological quality of the studies was classified as either low risk, with some concerns, or high risk of bias.

M.A. used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) guidelines [17, 18] to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.

Statistical analysis

We used RevMan v5.3 to conduct the statistical analysis [19]. For pooling the results of dichotomous outcomes, we used the risk ratio (RR), while for the continuous outcomes, we used the mean difference (MD), both with a 95% confidence interval (CI). We performed both the Chi-square and I-square tests to evaluate heterogeneity, where the Chi-square test detects the presence of heterogeneity, and the I-square test evaluates its degree. I-square was interpreted in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook (chapter 9) [15] as follows: heterogeneity is not significant for 0–40 percent, moderate for 30–60 percent, substantial for 50–90 percent, and considerable for 75–100 percent. We considered an alpha level below 0.1 for the Chi-square test to detect the significant heterogeneity. Leave-one-out sensitivity analysis was employed to resolve the heterogeneity by removing each trial one time from the pooled analyzed studies.

Results

Search results and study selection

In the pursuit of research, 1,069 articles emerged (153 in PubMed, 293 in Web of Science, 376 in Embase, 42 in Cochrane, and 205 in Scopus). After excluding 463 duplicates, we scrutinized the remaining 606. Following a title and abstract screening, 579 articles were dismissed. Upon full-text review, 24 more were eliminated. Consequently, three RCTs were included in both qualitative and quantitative synthesis. The literature search flow diagram is depicted in (Fig. 1). Of note, we excluded one RCT [20] from our analysis due to the difference in the protocol used in the cryotherapy arm, as they used a tandem focal cryoablation catheter in addition to the cryoballoon, which was significantly different from the other included RCTs.

Fig. 1
figure 1

PRISMA flow chart of the screening process

Full size image

Characteristics of included studies

We included three RCTs [11, 13, 21] with 400 patients; 232 patients were in the RFA arm, and 168 patients were in the CBA. More details about the trials and participants characteristics are summarized in (Tables 1, 2, Additional file 1: Tables S1, and S2).

Table 1 Summary characteristics of the included RCTs
Full size table
Table 2 Baseline characteristics of the participants
Full size table

Risk of bias and certainty of evidence

Upon assessing the risk of bias by the ROB 2 tool, all the RCTs had some concerns overall. The RoB results are shown in (Fig. 2), and more details about the author's judgments of the risk of bias assessment are outlined in (Additional file 1: Table S4). The certainty of evidence is outlined in a GRADE evidence profile (Table 3).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Quality assessment of risk of bias in the included trials. The upper panel presents a schematic representation of risks (low = green, unclear = yellow, and high = red) for specific types of biases of each study in the review. The lower panel presents risks (low = green, unclear = yellow, and high = red) for the subtypes of biases of the combination of studies included in this review

Full size image
Table 3 GRADE evidence profile
Full size table

Primary outcomes

There was no significant difference between RFA ablation and CBA ablation in the incidence of AF recurrence (RR: 0.77 with 95% CI [0.50, 1.20], P = 0.25) (Fig. 3A), atrial tachycardia or atrial flutter recurrence (RR: 0.54 with 95% CI [0.11, 2.76], P = 0.46) (Fig. 3B), and arrhythmia recurrence (RR: 0.96 with 95% CI [0.70, 1.31], P = 0.80) (Fig. 3C). The pooled studies were homogenous in AF recurrence (I2 = 0%, P = 0.61) and the incidence of arrhythmia recurrence (I2 = 0%, P = 0.70). However, pooled studies were heterogeneous in the incidence of atrial tachycardia or atrial flutter recurrence (I2 = 76%, P = 0.04). Sensitivity analysis was not applicable regarding the incidence of atrial tachycardia or atrial flutter.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Forest plot of the primary outcomes A atrial fibrillation recurrence, B atrial tachycardia/atrial flutter recurrence, C Any arrhythmia recurrence. RR: risk ratio, CI: confidence interval

Full size image

Secondary outcomes

Procedural outcomes

CBA was significantly associated with decreased total procedure time (MD: − 45.34 with 95% CI [− 62.68, − 28.00], P < 0.00001) (Fig. 4A). However, there was no significant difference between RFA and CBA in fluoroscopy time (MD: 3.59 with 95% CI [− 5.13, 12.31], P = − 0.42) (Fig. 4B). Additionally, there was no significant difference between RFA and CBA in the incidence of repeated ablation (RR: 1.19 with 95% CI [0.74, 1.92], P = 0.47) (Additional file 1: Fig. S1).

Fig. 4
figure 4

Forest plots of the secondary procedural outcomes A total procedure time, B fluoroscopy time, RR: risk ratio, CI: confidence interval

Full size image

The pooled studies were homogenous in the incidence of repeated ablation (I2 = 0%, P = 0.44). However, the pooled studies were heterogeneous in total procedure time (I2 = 90%, P < 0.0001) and fluoroscopy time (I2 = 96%, P < 0.00001). Regarding total procedure time, heterogeneity was best resolved by excluding Mililis et al. 2023 (I2 = 0%, P = 0.98). Regarding fluoroscopy time, heterogeneity was best resolved by excluding Baimbetov et al. 2022 (I2 = 0%, P = 0.35). (Additional file 1: Table S5).

Safety outcomes

There was no significant difference between RFA and CBA in the incidence of any complications (RR: 0.40 with 95% CI [0.07, 2.42], P = 0.32), the incidence of phrenic nerve palsy (RR: 2.91 with 95% CI [0.31, 27.54], P = 0.35), the incidence of access site complications (RR: 0.33 with 95% CI [0.05, 2.03], P = 0.23), and the incidence of pericardial effusion (RR: 0.45 with 95% CI [0.05, 4.14], P = 0.48) (Fig. 5).

Fig. 5
figure 5

Forest plots of the safety outcomes, RR: risk ratio, CI: confidence interval

Full size image

The pooled studies were homogenous in the incidence of any complications (I2 = 0%, P = 0.70), phrenic nerve palsy (I2 = 0%, P = 0.98), access site complications (I2 = 0%, P = 0.98), and pericardial effusion (I2 = 0%, P = 0.74).

Discussion

In this systematic review, we examined the safety and efficacy of CBA and RFA for PeAF. Our study revealed that CBA was comparable to RFA regarding AF and arrhythmia recurrence. However, CBA was linked to a notably shorter procedural time with no significant difference in fluoroscopy time and complication rate compared to RFA.

Second-generation CBA has recently emerged as a new technique in interventional cardiology, addressing limitations observed in the first generation. It achieves high cooling efficiency and more extensive lesion formation, resulting in a more homogeneous freezing effect [22]. A recent study has proved the efficacy of CBA treating PeAF [23, 24]. While the FIRE AND ICE study and the CIRCA-DOSE study have explored the efficacy and safety of CBA and RFA in managing paroxysmal AF, both showed no superiority of RFA over CBA in the clinical outcome for patients with the paroxysmal pattern [25, 26], there remains a scarcity of studies comparing both techniques specifically in PeAF cohort.

Catheter ablation offers numerous advantages over antiarrhythmic drugs, particularly in the treatment of PeAF, a condition known for its high refractory rate [27]. The NO-PERSAF study [21], an RCT conducted in Norway, aimed to compare the efficacy of CBA and RFA in treating PeAF. The study results revealed no significant difference between CBA and RFA in terms of the recurrence rate of arrhythmia. This finding aligns with the conclusions drawn by Millis et al. and Baimbetov et al. [11, 13]. These findings’ similarities may be because the same procedural techniques have been used in three studies and the protocol's resemblances, even though Baimbetov et al. [13] considered a more extensive follow-up period. Our meta-analysis, incorporating data from these three studies, further reinforces this outcome, indicating no statistically significant difference in the recurrence rates of arrhythmia, atrial flutter, or AF.

In our study, we explored the procedure duration for both interventions along with the fluoroscopy time. Our analysis uncovered a noteworthy finding that the CBA arm was found to have significantly less procedure time with a mean difference of − 45 min [− 62.68, − 28.00]. This goes in line with all the included RCTs [11, 13, 21]. However, it is essential to acknowledge that Shi et al. used three-dimensional mapping, and Baimbetov et al. had a 30-min evaluation period that may lead to a longer time in both groups [21]. Nevertheless, as experience accumulates, the overall ablation time decreases. On the other hand, Millis et al. and Shi et al. studies did not observe a significant difference in the fluoroscopy time [11, 21]. In contrast to Bamibetov et al. [13], whose study demonstrated that RFA was superior to CBA, showcasing less fluoroscopy time; this may be attributed to the fact that the ablation process was performed following the three-dimensional reconstruction of the LA, which led to less use of X-ray control. However, our paper did not conclusively affirm this finding, as no statistical significance was observed in the fluoroscopy time.

Similar to any medical intervention, there are risks of adverse events. In contrast, in the FREEZE AF study [6], major complication rates until discharge were notably low in both CBA and RFA groups. However, the study observed that the primary significant complication in the CBA group was phrenic nerve palsy, persisting until discharge (1.1%). In contrast, the RFA group exhibited a notable incidence of access site complications (4.3%), which could be attributed to a potential selection bias given the comparatively higher illness severity of patients in this group. Nevertheless, these numerical differences were clinically insignificant. The RCTs included in our analysis revealed no discernible differences in outcomes such as phrenic nerve palsy, access site complications, and overall complications [11, 13, 21]. This disparity may be attributed to the utilization of second-generation CB technology and the application of contact force sensing catheters in the study cohort, while in the FREEZE AF study, the CBA group was treated with first-generation CB, recognized for its lower efficacy compared to the second-generation. Our paper further corroborates these findings by demonstrating no significant distinctions between the two groups regarding any complications, phrenic nerve palsy, access site complications, and pericardial effusion.

Strengths

In this systematic review, we investigated the efficacy and safety of CBA and RFA in patients with PeAF. All the included studies were RCTs, and no observational or reviews were included. This type of selection enhances the credibility of our study by relying on rigorous experimental designs that are considered robust in scientific research.

Limitations

This paper has several limitations. The inclusion and exclusion criteria were met by only three randomized controlled trials, potentially impacting the robustness of the findings due to the limited sample size and an increased risk of bias. Furthermore, the constrained number of included studies and the high heterogeneity of various variables prevented the feasibility of conducting a subgroup analysis. The high heterogeneity could be justified by the differences in inclusion criteria and follow-up period along the three RCTs; two RCTs were monitored for up to 12 months [11, 21], and one RCT up to 36 months [13]. Additionally, two RCTs were single-center [11, 13], and one RCT was multi-center [21] with a small number of patients, which could raise concerns about selection bias. Further investigation and research are warranted to address these gaps and investigate the efficacy of radiofrequency versus cryoablation in PeAF with large left atrium size as Baimbetov et al. [13] excluded patients with left atrium size > 5.0 cm with no clear data in the other two RCTs.

Implications for future research

The follow-up period was not constant between the studies, introducing an inconsistency in the duration of monitoring. Additionally, the differences in monitoring devices among the RCTs may introduce measurement bias. Furthermore, future research should explore the impact of provider experience and technological advancements on outcomes to gain a deep understanding of these contributing factors.

Conclusions

In conclusion, RFA and CBA are comparable in efficacy and safety. However, CBA was associated with a shorter total procedure time.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Abbreviations

AF:

Atrial fibrillation

PV:

Pulmonary vein

RFA:

Radiofrequency ablation

CBA:

Cryoballoon ablation

PeAF:

Persistent atrial fibrillation

RCT:

Randomized controlled trial

BMI:

Body mass index

LVEF:

Left ventricular ejection fraction

RR:

Risk ratio

MD:

Mean difference

CI:

Confidence interval

References

  1. Schnabel RB, Yin X, Gona P, Larson MG, Beiser AS, McManus DD, Levy D (2015) 50 year trends in atrial fibrillation prevalence, incidence, risk factors, and mortality in the Framingham Heart Study: a cohort study. Lancet (London, England) 386(9989):154–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61774-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Verma A, Macle L, Cox J, Skanes AC (2011) Canadian Cardiovascular Society atrial fibrillation guidelines 2010: catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation/atrial flutter. Can J Cardiol 27(1):60–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjca.2010.11.011

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Haïssaguerre M, Jaïs P, Shah DC, Takahashi A, Hocini M, Quiniou G, Clémenty J (1998) Spontaneous initiation of atrial fibrillation by ectopic beats originating in the pulmonary veins. N Engl J Med 339(10):659–666. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199809033391003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Amin AM, Ghaly R, Ibrahim AA, Ali MA, Almaadawy O, Elzahaby A, Munir MB (2024) Efficacy and safety of high-power short-duration ablation for atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Interv Cardiac Electrophysiol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10840-024-01782-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Yacoub, M., & Sheppard, R. C. (2023). Cryoballoon Pulmonary Vein Catheter Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation. Treasure Island (FL).

  6. Hoffmann E, Straube F, Wegscheider K, Kuniss M, Andresen D, Wu L-Q, Senges J (2019) Outcomes of cryoballoon or radiofrequency ablation in symptomatic paroxysmal or persistent atrial fibrillation. EP Europace 21(9):1313–1324. https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euz155

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kuck K-H, Fürnkranz A, Chun KRJ, Metzner A, Ouyang F, Schlüter M, Brugada J (2016) Cryoballoon or radiofrequency ablation for symptomatic paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: reintervention, rehospitalization, and quality-of-life outcomes in the FIRE AND ICE trial. Eur Heart J 37(38):2858–2865. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehw285

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Andrade JG, Champagne J, Dubuc M, Deyell MW, Verma A, Macle L, Khairy P (2019) Cryoballoon or radiofrequency ablation for atrial fibrillation assessed by continuous monitoring: a randomized clinical trial. Circulation 140(22):1779–1788. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.042622

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Verma A, Jiang C, Betts TR, Chen J, Deisenhofer I, Mantovan R, Sanders P (2015) Approaches to catheter ablation for persistent atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med 372(19):1812–1822. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1408288

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Vogler J, Willems S, Sultan A, Schreiber D, Lüker J, Servatius H, Steven D (2015) Pulmonary vein isolation versus defragmentation: the CHASE-AF clinical trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 66(24):2743–2752. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2015.09.088

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Mililis P, Kariki O, Saplaouras A, Bazoukis G, Dragasis S, Patsiotis IG, Efremidis M (2023) Radiofrequency versus cryoballoon catheter ablation in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation: a randomized trial. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 34(7):1523–1528. https://doi.org/10.1111/jce.15965

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kim JA, Chelu MG (2023) Comparison of cryoballoon and radiofrequency ablation for persistent atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Interv Cardiac Electrophysiol Int J Arrhythm Pacing 66(3):585–595. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10840-022-01369-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Baimbetov AK, Bizhanov KA, Jukenova AM, Aubakirova AT, Ualiyeva AY, Sagatov IY (2022) Comparative effectiveness and safety of cryoablation versus radiofrequency ablation treatments for persistent atrial fibrillation. Am J Cardiol 184:22–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2022.08.031

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, Moher D (2021) The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Syst Rev 10(1):89. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01626-4

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Higgins JPT TJ, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch V (editors) (2023) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions.

  16. Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I, Higgins JPT (2019) RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ (Clin Res Ed) 366:l4898. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l4898

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Vist GE, Falck-Ytter Y, Schünemann HJ (2008) What is “quality of evidence” and why is it important to clinicians? BMJ (Clin Res Ed) 336(7651):995–998. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39490.551019.BE

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, Schünemann HJ (2008) GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ (Clin Res Ed) 336(7650):924–926. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.AD

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. RevMan | Cochrane Training [Internet]. [cited 2021 Aug 3]. Available from: https://training.cochrane.org/online-learning/core-software-cochrane-reviews/revmanNo Title. (n.d.).

  20. Gallagher MM, Yi G, Gonna H, Leung LWM, Harding I, Evranos B, Camm AJ (2021) Multi-catheter cryotherapy compared with radiofrequency ablation in long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation: a randomized clinical trial. EP Europace 23(3):370–379. https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euaa289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Shi L-B, Rossvoll O, Tande P, Schuster P, Solheim E, Chen J (2022) Cryoballoon vs. radiofrequency catheter ablation: insights from NOrwegian randomized study of PERSistent Atrial Fibrillation (NO-PERSAF study). EP Europace 24(2):226–233. https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euab281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Fürnkranz A, Bordignon S, Schmidt B, Gunawardene M, Schulte-Hahn B, Urban V, Chun JKR (2013) Improved procedural efficacy of pulmonary vein isolation using the novel second-generation cryoballoon. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 24(5):492–497. https://doi.org/10.1111/jce.12082

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Ciconte G, Ottaviano L, de Asmundis C, Baltogiannis G, Conte G, Sieira J, Brugada P (2015) Pulmonary vein isolation as index procedure for persistent atrial fibrillation: one-year clinical outcome after ablation using the second-generation cryoballoon. Heart Rhythm 12(1):60–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm.2014.09.063

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Koektuerk B, Yorgun H, Hengeoez O, Turan CH, Dahmen A, Yang A, Horlitz M (2015) Cryoballoon ablation for pulmonary vein isolation in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation: one-year outcome using second generation cryoballoon. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol 8(5):1073–1079. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCEP.115.002776

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Kuck K-H, Albenque J-P, Chun KRJ, Fürnkranz A, Busch M, Elvan A, Brugada J (2019) Repeat ablation for atrial fibrillation recurrence post cryoballoon or radiofrequency ablation in the FIRE AND ICE trial. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol 12(6):e007247. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCEP.119.007247

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Samuel M, Khairy P, Champagne J, Deyell MW, Macle L, Leong-Sit P, Andrade JG (2021) Association of atrial fibrillation burden with health-related quality of life after atrial fibrillation ablation: substudy of the cryoballoon vs contact-force atrial fibrillation ablation (CIRCA-DOSE) randomized clinical trial. JAMA Cardiol 6(11):1324–1328. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamacardio.2021.3063

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Mont L, Bisbal F, Hernández-Madrid A, Pérez-Castellano N, Viñolas X, Arenal A, Brugada J (2014) Catheter ablation vs. antiarrhythmic drug treatment of persistent atrial fibrillation: a multicentre, randomized, controlled trial (SARA study). Eur Heart J 35(8):501–507. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/eht457

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

None.

Funding

We received no funding for this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Medicine, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt

    Ahmed Mazen Amin

  2. Division of Infectious Diseases, Brigham and Women’s Hospital- Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, 02115, USA

    Ahmad Nawlo

  3. Faculty of Medicine, Menoufia University, Saad Zaghloul St., Shibin El-Kom, 32511, Menoufia Governorate, Egypt

    Ahmed A. Ibrahim

  4. Faculty of Medicine, October 6 University, Giza, Egypt

    Ahmed Hassan

  5. Faculty of Medicine, Minia University, Minya, Egypt

    Alhassan Saber

  6. Faculty of Medicine, Tanta University, Tanta, Egypt

    Mohamed Abuelazm

  7. Department of Cardiology, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, USA

    Basel Abdelazeem

  8. Department of Cardiology, Suez Medical Complex, Ministry of Health and Population, Suez, Egypt

    Ahmed Hassan

Authors
  1. Ahmed Mazen Amin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ahmad Nawlo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ahmed A. Ibrahim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ahmed Hassan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Alhassan Saber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Mohamed Abuelazm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Basel Abdelazeem
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

AMA conceived the idea. AMA and MA designed the research workflow. AMA and MA searched the databases. AH and AS screened the retrieved records, extracted relevant data, assessed the quality of evidence, and BA resolved the conflicts. AMA and AAI performed the analysis. AMA, AN, and MA wrote the final manuscript. BA supervised the project. All authors have read and agreed to the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ahmed A. Ibrahim.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1

. Table S1: Search strategy.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Amin, A.M., Nawlo, A., Ibrahim, A.A. et al. Efficacy and safety of radiofrequency ablation versus cryoballoon ablation for persistent atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Egypt Heart J 76, 89 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s43044-024-00518-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s43044-024-00518-x

Keywords