Second-generation cryoballoon versus contact force radiofrequency ablation for atrial fibrillation: an updated meta-analysis of evidence from randomized controlled trials

Catheter ablation has been recommended for patients with symptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF), with pulmonary vein isolation being the cornerstone of the ablation procedure. Newly developed technologies, such as cryoballoon ablation with a second-generation cryoballoon (CB2) and the contact force radiofrequency (CF-RF) ablation, have been introduced in recent years to overcome the shortcomings of the widely used RF ablation approach. However, high-quality results comparing CB2 and CF-RF remain controversial. Thus, we conducted this meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety between CB2 and CF-RF using evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Databases including Embase, PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were systematically searched from their date of inception to January 2021. Only RCTs that met the inclusion criteria were included for analysis. The primary outcome of interest was freedom from atrial tachyarrhythmia (AT) during follow-up. Secondary outcomes included procedure-related complications, procedure time and fluoroscopy time. Six RCTs with a total of 987 patients were finally enrolled. No significant differences were found between CB2 and CF-RF in terms of freedom from AT (relative risk [RR] = 1.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.92–1.14, p = 0.616) or total procedural-related complications (RR = 1.25, 95% CI 0.69–2.27, p = 0.457). CB2 treatment was associated with a significantly higher risk of phrenic nerve palsy (PNP) than CF-RF (RR = 4.93, 95% CI 1.12–21.73, p = 0.035). The occurrences of pericardial effusion/tamponade and vascular complications were comparable between the CB2 and CF-RF treatments (RR = 0.41, p = 0.398; RR = 0.82, p = 0.632). In addition, CB2 treatment had a significantly shorter procedure time than CF-RF (weighted mean difference [WMD] = − 20.75 min, 95% CI − 25.44 ~ − 16.05 min, P < 0.001), whereas no difference was found in terms of fluoroscopy time (WMD = 4.63 min, p = 0.179). CB2 and CF-RF treatment are comparable for AF patients regarding freedom from AT and procedure-related complications. Compared to CF-RF, CB2 treatment was associated with a shorter procedure time but a higher incidence of PNP. Further large-scale studies are warranted to compare these two techniques and provide an up-to-date recommendation.