Why the study?
Does second-generation cryoballoon ablation improve freedom from atrial fibrillation compared to contact force radiofrequency ablation in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation?
Population
92 consecutive patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation scheduled for transcatheter ablation
Comparison
Second-generation cryoballoon ablation vs Contact force radiofrequency ablation
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
12 months
Key result
Second generation cryoballoon ablation resulted in similar 12-month freedom from atrial fibrillation compared to contact force radiofrequency ablation (78% vs 76%, p=0.804).
Authors
Loading...
Second-generation cryoballoon and contact force radiofrequency ablation demonstrate similar 12-month efficacy and safety for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, though cryoablation initially requires longer fluoroscopy time.
Cohort (n=92)
Yes
Does second-generation cryoballoon ablation improve freedom from atrial fibrillation compared to contact force radiofrequency ablation in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation?
Absolute Event Rate: 78% vs 76%
p-value: p=0.804
Second-generation cryoballoon and contact force radiofrequency ablation demonstrate similar 12-month efficacy and safety for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, though cryoablation initially requires longer fluoroscopy time.
Matta et al. (2018) conducted a cohort in Paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (n=92). Second generation cryoballoon ablation vs. Contact force radiofrequency ablation was evaluated on Freedom from atrial fibrillation at 12 months (p=0.804). Second generation cryoballoon ablation resulted in similar 12-month freedom from atrial fibrillation compared to contact force radiofrequency ablation (78% vs 76%, p=0.804).