Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Abstract Aims Phrenic nerve injury (PNI) is the most common complication during cryoballoon ablation. Currently, two cryoballoon systems are available, yet the difference is unclear. We sought to compare the acute procedural efficacy and safety of the two cryoballoons. Methods This prospective observational study consisted of 2,555 consecutive atrial fibrillation (AF) patients undergoing pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) using either conventional (Arctic Front Advance) (AFA-CB) or novel cryoballoons (POLARx) (POLARx-CB) at 19 centers between January 2022 and October 2023. Results Among 2,555 patients (68.8 ± 10.9 years, 1,740 men, paroxysmal AFPAF 1,670 patients), PVIs were performed by the AFA-CB and POLARx-CB in 1,358 and 1,197 patients, respectively. Touch-up ablation was required in 299(11.7%) patients. The touch-up rate was significantly lower for POLARx-CB than AFA-CB (9.5% vs. 13.6%, p = 0.002), especially for right inferior PVs (RIPVs). The touch-up rate was significantly lower for PAF than non-PAF (8.8% vs. 17.2%, P 0.001) and was similar between the two cryoballoons in non-PAF patients. Right PNI occurred in 64(2.5%) patients and 22(0.9%) were symptomatic. It occurred during the right superior PV (RSPV) ablation in 39(1.5%) patients. The incidence was significantly higher for POLARx-CB than AFA-CB (3.8% vs. 1.3%, P 0.001) as was the incidence of symptomatic PNI (1.7% vs. 0.1%, P 0.001). The difference was significant during RSPV (2.5% vs. 0.7%, P 0.001) but not RIPV ablation. The PNI recovered more quickly for the AFA-CB than POLARx-CB. Conclusions Our study demonstrated a significantly higher incidence of right PNI and lower touch-up rate for the POLARx-CB than AFA-CB in the real-world clinical practice.
Tachibana et al. (Sat,) studied this question.