Effects of hot balloon versus cryoballoon ablation for atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: None. Background Catheter ablation has developed as the most effective therapeutic approach and won the highest-level guideline recommendation in treating atrial fibrillation (AF) in the decades. Several balloon-based catheter ablations, including hot balloon ablation (HBA) and cryoballoon ablation (CBA), have rapidly emerged as alternative modalities to conventional radiofrequency catheter-based AF ablation. However, the differences in characteristics, effectiveness, clinical outcomes, safety, and efficacy between HBA and CBA remain undetermined. Purpose To compare the differences in the prognosis and characteristics between HBA and CBA. Methods Our electronic search was conducted in six databases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, ClinicalTrial.gov, and medRxiv, with specific search strategies. Eligible studies were selected according to specific criteria. All records were identified up to June 1, 2021. The mean difference, odds ratios (ORs), and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were calculated to evaluate the clinical outcomes. Heterogeneity and risk of bias were also assessed with predefined criteria. Results A total of 7 studies were included in our final meta-analysis. Comparing with CBA, more patients in the HBA group required touch-up ablation (OR 2.76, 95% CI, 2.02, 3.77, P = 0.000). More residual conduction was seen in the HBA group. HBA group had a longer procedure duration than the CBA group (WMD 14.24, 95%CI 4.39, 24.09, P = 0.005). More patients in the CBA group were likely to have AF occurrence (OR 0.75, 95% CI, 0.44, 1.27, P = 0.281) and accepted more antiarrhythmic drug therapy (OR 0.70, 95% CI, 0.45, 1.09, P = 0.114), although the result was insignificant. Conclusions Both HBA and CBA are effective ablation approaches to treat atrial fibrillation. Patients who received HBA were more likely to receive touch-up ablation and undergo longer procedure time. Patients in the CBA group were more likely to have AF occurrence and accepted more antiarrhythmic therapies. However, the long-term safety is still unknown. Further studies of multicenter, randomized clinical trials are warranted to verify this fundamental question.