Short-term and long-term effects of cryoballoon ablation versus antiarrhythmic drug therapy as first-line treatment for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Comparative Safety of Pulsed Field Ablation and Cryoballoon Ablation Technologies for Pulmonary Vein Isolation in Patients with Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation: A Critical Literature Review and Indirect Treatment Comparison

INTRODUCTION

Cryoballoon ablation (CBA) is a standard catheter ablation technology with demonstrated clinical effectiveness for the treatment of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF); however, it can be associated with major adverse events, including phrenic nerve paralysis. Pulsed field ablation (PFA) is a novel, minimally thermal technology with comparable effectiveness and low safety risk. This study aimed to compare the safety profiles of PFA and CBA through critical analyses of the literature and indirect treatment comparisons.

METHODS

Studies were identified by searching the MEDLINE database and the Clinicaltrials.gov registry. Registered clinical trials and/or Food and Drug Administration Investigation Device Exemption (FDA IDE) studies evaluating PFA or CBA in adult patients with drug-refractory PAF between January 2008 and March 2023 were selected. Comparative safety between PFA and CBA was assessed for major and prespecified adverse events. Indirect comparisons were conducted using the proportion of patients experiencing adverse events and confirmed with single-arm meta-analyses and sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Data were extracted from three PFA publications including a total of 497 patients and six CBA studies including a total of 1113 patients. The analysis revealed that PFA was associated with significantly lower risk of major adverse events {risk difference - 4.3% [95% confidence interval (CI) - 5.8, - 2.8]; risk ratio 0.16 [95% CI 0.07, 0.45]} and prespecified adverse events [risk difference - 2.5% (95% CI - 4.4, - 0.5); risk ratio 0.53 (95% CI 0.31, 0.96)]. Meta-analyses confirmed the lower rate of major adverse events for PFA [0.4% (95% CI 0.0, 1.3)] vs. CBA [5.6% (95% CI 2.6, 8.6)] and prespecified adverse events for PFA [2.7% (95% CI 1.2, 4.1)] vs. CBA [5.8% (95% CI 2.7, 9.0)]. Sensitivity analyses exploring heterogeneity across studies confirmed robustness of the main analyses.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this study show that PFA has a more favorable safety profile than CBA, with significantly lower risks of major and prespecified adverse events. These indirect comparisons help contextualize the safety of PFA compared to CBA for the treatment of drug-refractory PAF in the absence of head-to-head studies.