Why the study?
Outcomes of cryoballoon ablation for persistent AF are unclear, especially in Japanese patients.
Does cryoballoon ablation reduce atrial arrhythmia recurrence compared to contact force-sensing radiofrequency ablation in Japanese patients with persistent atrial fibrillation?
Population
Consecutive patients with persistent AF (253 cryoballoon and 265 CFRF)
Comparison
Cryoballoon ablation vs CFRF ablation including the high-power protocol
Design
Retrospective comparative study
Follow-up
25.5±12.5 months
Key result
Cryoballoon ablation for persistent atrial fibrillation resulted in a comparable rate of freedom from atrial arrhythmia recurrence compared to contact force-sensing radiofrequency ablation (HR 0.85).
Loading...
Comparable recurrence rates with cryoballoon versus CFRF in persistent AF; leaves open need for randomized confirmation before practice change.
Observational (n=518)
No
Does cryoballoon ablation reduce atrial arrhythmia recurrence compared to contact force-sensing radiofrequency ablation in Japanese patients with persistent atrial fibrillation?
Hazard Ratio: 0.85 (95% CI 0.59–1.21)
Absolute Event Rate: 72.3% vs 69.8%
p-value: p=0.36
Cryoballoon ablation demonstrates comparable effectiveness and safety to contact force-sensing radiofrequency ablation for the treatment of persistent atrial fibrillation in routine clinical practice.
A 2021 study conducted an observational in Persistent atrial fibrillation (n=518). Cryoballoon ablation vs. Contact force-sensing radiofrequency (CFRF) ablation was evaluated on Freedom from atrial arrhythmia recurrence (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.59-1.21, p=0.36). Cryoballoon ablation for persistent atrial fibrillation resulted in a comparable rate of freedom from atrial arrhythmia recurrence compared to contact force-sensing radiofrequency ablation (HR 0.85).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: