Cryoballoon ablation demonstrated comparable efficacy to radiofrequency ablation for persistent atrial fibrillation, with a 1-year recurrence rate of 16.1% versus 23.3% (P=0.360).
Cohort (n=116)
No
Does cryoballoon catheter ablation improve efficacy and safety compared to radiofrequency ablation in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation undergoing first-time ablation?
Cryoballoon ablation and radiofrequency ablation demonstrate comparable efficacy and safety for the first-time treatment of persistent atrial fibrillation in a real-world setting.
Absolute Event Rate: 16.1% vs 23.3%
p-value: p=0.360
Aims To analyze and compare the efficacy and safety of cryoballoon catheter ablation (CBA) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in the first treatment of patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (PerAF). Methods 116 patients with PerAF who underwent the first-time catheter ablation were enrolled retrospectively, including 56 patients in CBA group and 60 patients in RFA group. The primary endpoint was symptomatic onset after 3 months of ablation or occurrence of atrial arrhythmia (ATA) with any documented duration more than 30 s. The secondary endpoints were perioperative complications and re-ablation 3 month after procedure. Results No remarkable difference existed between CBA group and RFA group in the recurrence rate one year after operation (CBA 16.1% vs. RFA 23.3%, P = 0.360). Additionally, the complication rates were similar between the two groups (CBA 25.0% vs. RFA 35.0%, P = 0.312). Conclusion In this real-world study, the effectiveness and overall safety of CBA and RFA in the treatment of PerAF were comparable.
Luan et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in Persistent atrial fibrillation (n=116). Cryoballoon ablation vs. Radiofrequency ablation was evaluated on Symptomatic onset after 3 months of ablation or occurrence of atrial arrhythmia with any documented duration more than 30 s (p=0.360). Cryoballoon ablation demonstrated comparable efficacy to radiofrequency ablation for persistent atrial fibrillation, with a 1-year recurrence rate of 16.1% versus 23.3% (P=0.360).