Abstract
BackgroundRecently a novel cryoballoon ablation (CBA) system (POLARx) for the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF) has been introduced. ObjectiveWe aimed at systematically reviewing the efficacy and safety of the POLARx to the ArcticFront system. MethodsStructured systematic database search for articles published between 2021 and 2024 reporting the efficacy and/or safety of the POLARx system for AF ablation. The co-primary endpoints were the long-term efficacy and safety of the POLARx system ResultsOf the 24 studies with 5364 patients (weighted mean age 62.4 years) included, 15 compared the POLARx system (1746 patients) to the ArcticFront system (2282 patients). Despite significantly lower temperatures at isolation (POLARx -46.3°C, ArcticFront -31.6°C, p <0.01) and nadir temperatures (POLARx -56.5°C ArcticFront -47.8°C p <0.01), the POLARx system did not show a better acute (98.9% and 99.2% successfully ablated patients, 99.5% and 99.8% successfully ablated pulmonary veins in the POLARx and ArcticFront group, respectively) or long-term efficacy (After a weighted mean follow-up of 12.6 months, the success rate was 69.5% with POLARx and 60.2% with ArcticFront (p = 0.98)). While most complications were similar between the POLARx and ArcticFront group, the incidence of phrenic nerve palsies in the pooled cohorts (all POLARx vs all ArcticFront control patients) differed (2.7% vs. 1.6% in the POLARx vs. ArcticFront group, respectively, OR 1.79 [1.14-2.83], p-value = 0.01). ConclusionThe novel POLARx system provided similar efficiency and acute/long-term efficacy, but showed a higher incidence of phrenic nerve palsies compared to the ArcticFront system.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call