Evidence Hub

Efficacy and safety of pulsed field ablation compared to cryoballoon ablation in the treatment of atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis

I. Rudolph, G. Mastella, I. Bernlochner, A. Steger, G. von Olshausen, Franziska Hahn, Reza Wakili, K. Laugwitz et al.

European Heart Journal Open, 2024

3,805 participants · 27 citations

Abstract

Abstract Aims Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) represents the gold standard in the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF) and the use of single-shot techniques, such as cryoballoon ablation (CBA) and pulsed field ablation (PFA) using a pentaspline catheter, has gained prominence. Recent studies hypothesize that PFA might be superior to CBA, although procedural efficacy and safety data are inconsistent. A meta-analysis was conducted to compare both energy sources for the treatment of AF. Methods and results A structured systematic database search and meta-analysis were performed on studies investigating outcomes, periprocedural complications, and/or procedural parameters of AF patients treated by either CBA or PFA. Eleven studies reporting data from 3805 patients were included. Pulmonary vein isolation by PFA was associated with a significantly lower recurrence of atrial fibrillation/atrial tachycardia [odds ratio (OR) = 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.54–0.98, I2 = 20%] and fewer periprocedural complications (OR = 0.62, 95% CI = 0.40–0.96, I2 = 6%) compared to CBA. The lower complication rate following PFA was mainly driven by fewer phrenic nerve injuries (OR = 0.19, 95% CI = 0.08–0.43, I2 = 0%). However, there were more cases of cardiac tamponades after PFA (OR = 2.56, 95% CI = 1.01–6.49, I2 = 0%). Additionally, using PFA for PVI was associated with shorter total procedure times [mean difference (MD) = −9.68, 95% CI = −14.92 to −4.43 min, I2 = 92%] and lower radiation…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 3,805 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free