Pulsed field ablation significantly reduced surgical duration and perioperative complications (RR 0.52; 95% CI 0.30-0.89; p=0.02) compared to cryoballoon ablation for atrial fibrillation.
Meta-Analysis (n=2,875)
Does pulsed field ablation improve procedural efficiency and safety compared to cryoballoon ablation in patients with atrial fibrillation?
Pulsed field ablation offers shorter procedural times and fewer perioperative complications than cryoballoon ablation for atrial fibrillation, with similar efficacy in preventing arrhythmia recurrence.
Effect estimate: RR 0.52 (95% CI 0.30-0.89)
p-value: p=0.02
Abstract Background Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) is the cornerstone of atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation surgery. Cryoballoon ablation (CBA), a conventional thermal ablation technique, enjoys widespread clinical application. In contrast, Pulsed field ablation (PFA) is a novel non thermal ablation technique for the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF) patients, with safety comparable to traditional thermal ablation surgery. The present study aims to evaluate and compare the procedural efficiency and safety profiles of PFA and CBA in the management of AF. Method We performed a systematic search across PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase databases, encompassing the literature up to February 2024, to inform our systematic review and meta-analysis. When assessing outcome indicators, the risk ratio (RR) and its corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated for dichotomous variables. For continuous variables, the mean difference (MD) and the associated 95% CI were determined. In this context, an RR less than 1 and an MD less than 0 were considered advantageous for the PFA group. Result In this analysis, nine observational studies encompassing 2,875 patients with AF were included. Among these, 38% ( n =1105) were treated with PFA, while 62% ( n =1,770) received CBA. The results indicated that PFA was associated with a significantly shorter surgical duration compared to CBA, with a mean difference (MD) of -10.49 minutes (95% CI -15.50, -5.49; p <0.0001). Additionally, the PFA group exhibited a reduced risk of perioperative complications relative to the CBA group, with a risk ratio (RR) of 0.52 (95% CI 0.30-0.89; p =0.02). Nevertheless, no statistically significant differences were observed when comparing the two treatment cohorts concerning fluorescence irradiation time (MD 0.71; 95% CI -0.45, 1.86; p =0.23) and the recurrence of atrial arrhythmias during follow-up (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.78-1.14; p =0.57). Conclusion The outcomes of this investigation reveal that PFA holds a relative advantage over CBA in certain respects, notably by reducing both surgical duration and the incidence of perioperative complications. However, no significant distinction was identified between the two modalities concerning the duration of fluorescence irradiation or the rate of atrial arrhythmia recurrence. To enhance the robustness of these estimates, further research is needed, especially by incorporating additional randomized controlled trials.
Wan et al. (Sun,) conducted a meta-analysis in atrial fibrillation (n=2,875). Pulsed field ablation (PFA) vs. Cryoballoon ablation (CBA) was evaluated on Perioperative complications (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.30-0.89, p=0.02). Pulsed field ablation significantly reduced surgical duration and perioperative complications (RR 0.52; 95% CI 0.30-0.89; p=0.02) compared to cryoballoon ablation for atrial fibrillation.