Key result
POLARx matches Arctic Front safety and efficacy but increases inferior PV TTI recording odds by ~191%.
Why the study?
Initial experience suggested similar efficacy and safety between POLARx and Arctic Front Advance Pro, prompting an updated systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the two cryoballoon systems.
Does the POLARx cryoballoon system have similar acute procedural efficacy and safety compared to the AFA-Pro system in patients undergoing pulmonary vein isolation for atrial fibrillation?
Population
1146 patients undergoing PV isolation for AF across 8 studies from 11 European centers
Comparison
POLARx cryoballoon system vs AFA-Pro
Design
Systematic review and meta-analysis of 8 studies
Authors
Loading...
Supports POLARx as an alternative to AFA-Pro for acute PVI; extends comparative cryoballoon evidence on inferior vein TTI recording.
Meta-Analysis (n=1,146)
Yes
Does the POLARx cryoballoon system have similar acute procedural efficacy and safety compared to the AFA-Pro system in patients undergoing pulmonary vein isolation for atrial fibrillation?
Effect estimate: OR 2.91 (95% CI 1.54 to 5.49)
p-value: p=0.001
The novel POLARx cryoballoon system demonstrates similar acute procedural efficacy and safety compared to the established AFA-Pro system for pulmonary vein isolation in atrial fibrillation.
Assaf et al. (2022) conducted a meta-analysis in Atrial fibrillation (n=1,146). POLARx cryoballoon vs. Arctic Front Advance Pro (AFA-Pro) cryoballoon was evaluated on Time-to-isolation (TTI) recording in the left inferior pulmonary vein (LIPV) (OR 2.91, 95% CI 1.54 to 5.49, p=0.001). The POLARx cryoballoon system demonstrated similar acute procedural efficacy and safety compared to the Arctic Front Advance Pro system, but had a significantly higher likelihood of time-to-isolation recording in the inferior pulmonary veins.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: