Pool analyses indicated that CB ablation was more beneficial in terms of procedural time [ st and ard mean difference = −0.58 ; 95 % confidence interval ( CI ) , −0.85 to −0.30 ] , complications without phrenic nerve injury ( PNI ) [ odds ratio ( OR ) = 0.79 ; 95 % CI , 0.67–0.93 ; I2 = 16 % ] , and recrudescence ( OR = 0.83 ; 95 % CI , 0.70–0.97 ; I2 = 63 % ) for PAF ; however , the total complications of CB was higher than RF .
The subgroup analysis found that , compared with non-contact force radiofrequency ( non-CF-RF ) , both first-generation cryoballoon ( CB1 ) and second-generation cryoballoon ( CB2 ) ablation  could reduce complications with PNI , procedural time , and recrudescence .
However , the safety and efficacy of CB2 was similar to those of CF-RF .
Conclusion Available overall and subgroup data suggested that both CB1 and CB2 were more beneficial than RF ablation , and the main advantages were reflected in comparing them with non-CF-RF .
However , CF-RF and CB2 showed similar clinical benefits
Purpose The present systematic review and meta- analysis aim ed to assess and compare the safety and efficacy of radiofrequency ( RF ) and cryoballoon ( CB ) ablation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation ( PAF ) .
RF and CB ablation are two frequently used methods for pulmonary vein isolation in PAF , but which is a better choice for PAF remains uncertain .
Two-Year Follow-Up after Contact Force Sensing Radiofrequency Catheter and Second-Generation Cryoballoon Ablation for Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation: A Comparative Single Centre Study
Background . There are little comparative data on catheter ablation of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation ( AF ) using the contact force radiofrequency ( CF-RF ) catheter versus the second-generation cryoballoon ( CB2 ) . Methods and results . This is a single center , retrospective , nonr and omized study of 98 patients with symptomatic , drug-refractory paroxysmal AF who underwent their first PVI ablation using either the CB2 ( n = 40 ) or CF-RF ( n = 58 ) . The mean age was 60 years with 63 % men , a mean LA size of 42 mm . The procedure duration ( 74 ± 17 versus 120 ± 49 minutes p < 0.05 ) was shorter for CB2 group ; the fluoroscopy time ( 14 ± 17 versus 16 ± 5 minutes , p = 0.45 ) was similar . Complete PVI was achieved in 96 % of patients with RF-CF and 98 % with CB2 . Phrenic nerve palsies ( 2 transient and 1 persistent ) occurred exclusively in the CB2 group and 1 severe , nonlethal complication ( pericardial tamponade ) occurred in the CF-RF group . At 24-month follow-up , the success rate , defined as freedom from AF/atrial tachycardia ( AT ) after a single procedure without antiarrhythmic drug , was comparable in CF-RF group and CB2 group ( 65.5 % versus 67 % , resp . , log rank p = 0.54 ) . Conclusion . Both the CB2 and the RF-CF ablation appeared safe ; the success rate at 2 years was comparable between both technologies
Pool analyses indicated that CB ablation was more beneficial in terms of procedural time [ st and ard mean difference = −0.58 ; 95 % confidence interval ( CI ) , −0.85 to −0.30 ] , complications without phrenic nerve injury ( PNI ) [ odds ratio ( OR ) = 0.79 ; 95 % CI , 0.67–0.93 ; I2 = 16 % ] , and recrudescence ( OR = 0.83 ; 95 % CI , 0.70–0.97 ; I2 = 63 % ) for PAF ; however , the total complications of CB was higher than RF .
The subgroup analysis found that , compared with non-contact force radiofrequency ( non-CF-RF ) , both first-generation cryoballoon ( CB1 ) and second-generation cryoballoon ( CB2 ) ablation  could reduce complications with PNI , procedural time , and recrudescence .
However , the safety and efficacy of CB2 was similar to those of CF-RF .
Conclusion Available overall and subgroup data suggested that both CB1 and CB2 were more beneficial than RF ablation , and the main advantages were reflected in comparing them with non-CF-RF .
However , CF-RF and CB2 showed similar clinical benefits
Purpose The present systematic review and meta- analysis aim ed to assess and compare the safety and efficacy of radiofrequency ( RF ) and cryoballoon ( CB ) ablation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation ( PAF ) .
RF and CB ablation are two frequently used methods for pulmonary vein isolation in PAF , but which is a better choice for PAF remains uncertain .