Abstract
Following its introduction into clinical practice, the cryoballoon (CB) has proved to be an alternative for pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) in patients with paroxysmal and persistent atrial fibrillation (AF). In comparison with the standard radiofrequency procedure, the CB method results in a shorter procedure time and learning curve as well as a higher degree of reproducibility. A new cryoballoon (NCB) was recently introduced on the market. In this review, we addressed the following questions: Is the new system technically similar to the previous one? Is there a difference in terms of periprocedural parameters? Are acute success and complication rates similar? Is the learning curve different?
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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 callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
