Radiofrequency vs. Cryoballoon vs. Thoracoscopic Surgical Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation: A Single-Center Experience

Background and Objectives: Cryoballoon ablation (CBA) and totally thoracoscopic surgical ablation (TTA) have emerged as alternatives to radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA) for atrial fibrillation. In this study, we describe our experience comparing patient characteristics and outcomes of RFCA, CBA, and TTA. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed data from patients who underwent RFCA, CBA, or TTA. Both atrial fibrillation (AF)- and atrial tachyarrhythmia (ATa)-free survival rates were compared using time to recurrence after a 3-month blanking period (defined by a duration of more than 30 s). All patients were regularly followed using 12-lead ECGs or Holter ECG monitoring. Results: Of 354 patients in this study, 125 underwent RFCA, 97 underwent CBA and 131 underwent TTA. The TTA group had more patients with persistent AF, a larger LA diameter, and a history of stroke. The CBA group showed the shortest procedure time (p < 0.001). The CBA group showed significantly lower AF-free survival at 12 months than the RFCA and TTA groups (RFCA 84%, CBA 74% and TTA 85%, p = 0.071; p = 0.859 for TTA vs. RFCA, p = 0.038 for RFCA vs. CBA and p = 0.046 for TTA vs. CBA). There were no significant differences in ATa-free survival among the three groups (p = 0.270). There were no procedure-related adverse events in the RFCA group, but some complications occurred in the CBA group and the TTA group (6% and 5%, respectively). Conclusions: RFCA and CBA are effective and safe as first-line treatments for paroxysmal and persistent AF. In some high-risk stroke patients, TTA may be a viable option. It is important to consider patient characteristics when selecting an ablation method for AF.