Comparison of procedural efficacy and biophysical parameters between two competing cryoballoon technologies for pulmonary vein isolation: Insights from an initial multicenter experience

Abstract Introduction Recently a novel cryoballoon system (POLARx, Boston Scientific) became available for the treatment of atrial fibrillation. This cryoballoon is comparable with Arctic Front Advance Pro (AFA‐Pro, Medtronic), however, it maintains a constant balloon pressure. We compared the procedural efficacy and biophysical characteristics of both systems. Methods One hundred and ten consecutive patients who underwent first‐time cryoballoon ablation (POLARx: n = 57; AFA‐Pro: n = 53) were included in this prospective cohort study. Results Acute isolation was achieved in 99.8% of all pulmonary veins (POLARx: 99.5% vs. AFA‐Pro: 100%, p = 1.00). Total procedure time (81 vs. 67 min, p < .001) and balloon in body time (51 vs. 35 min, p < .001) were longer with POLARx. After a learning curve, these times were similar. Cryoablation with POLARx was associated with shorter time to balloon temperature −30°C (27 vs. 31 s, p < .001) and −40°C (32 vs. 54 s, p < .001), lower balloon nadir temperature (−55°C vs. −47°C, p < .001), and longer thawing time till 0°C (16 vs. 9 s, p < .001). There were no differences in time‐to‐isolation (TTI; POLARx: 45 s vs. AFA‐Pro 43 s, p = .441), however, POLARx was associated with a lower balloon temperature at TTI (−46°C vs. −37°C, p < .001). Factors associated with acute isolation differed between groups. The incidence of phrenic nerve palsy was comparable (POLARx: 3.5% vs. AFA‐Pro: 3.7%). Conclusion The novel cryoballoon is comparable to AFA‐Pro and requires only a short learning curve to get used to the slightly different handling. It was associated with faster cooling rates and lower balloon temperatures but TTI was similar to AFA‐Pro.