Effects of Hot Balloon vs. Cryoballoon Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Meta-Regression

Bayesian network meta-analysis comparing hot balloon, laser balloon and cryoballoon ablation as initial therapies for atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND

Balloon-based catheter ablation (CA) technologies, including hot balloon ablation (HBA), laser balloon ablation (LBA) and cryoballoon ablation (CBA) have been introduced in recent years as alternatives to conventional radiofrequency ablation therapy for atrial fibrillation (AF). However, the results remain controversial concerning the optimal approach. Thus, we conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) to comprehensively evaluate the efficacy and safety of HBA, LBA and CBA.

METHODS

Clinical trials comparing the efficacy and safety of HBA, LBA and CBA were identified through a systematic search up to October 2022. The primary outcomes of interest were the recurrence of AF and procedure-related complications.

RESULTS

Twenty clinical trials with a total of 1,995 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The NMA results demonstrated that HBA, LBA and CBA had comparable AF recurrence rates (HBA vs. CBA: odds ratio OR = 0.88, 95% credible interval CrI: 0.56-1.4; LBA vs. CBA: OR = 1.1, 95% CrI: 0.75-1.5; LBA vs. HBA: OR = 1.2, 95% CrI: 0.70-2.0) and procedure-related complications (HBA vs. CBA: OR = 0.93, 95% CrI: 0.46-2.3; LBA vs. CBA: OR = 1.1, 95% CrI: 0.63-2.1; LBA vs. HBA: OR = 1.2, 95% CrI: 0.44-2.8). The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) suggested that HBA may be the optimal approach concerning the primary outcomes (SUCRA = 74.4%; 61.1%, respectively). However, HBA (40.1%) had a significantly higher incidence of touch-up ablation (TUA) than LBA (8.5%, OR = 2.8, 95% CrI: 1.1-7.1) and CBA (11.9%, OR = 3.7, 95% CrI: 1.9-7.5). LBA required more procedure time than CBA [mean difference (MD = 32.0 min, 95% CrI: 19.0-45.0 min)] and HBA (MD = 26.0 min, 95% CrI: 5.6-45.0 min), but less fluoroscopy time than HBA (MD = -9.4 min, 95% CrI: -17.0--2.4 min).

CONCLUSIONS

HBA, LBA and CBA had comparable efficacy and safety as initial treatments for AF. HBA ranked highest in the primary outcomes, but at the cost of a higher incidence of TUA and longer fluoroscopy time.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022381954, identifier: CRD42022381954.

Percutaneous Treatment Approaches in Atrial Fibrillation: Current Landscape and Future Perspectives

Atrial fibrillation (AF), the most common sustained arrhythmia in clinical practice, represents a major cause of morbidity and mortality, with an increasing prevalence. Pharmacologic treatment remains the cornerstone of its management through rhythm and rate control, as well as the prevention of thromboembolism with the use of oral anticoagulants. Recent progress in percutaneous interventional approaches have provided additional options in the therapeutic arsenal, however. The use of the different catheter ablation techniques can now lead to long arrhythmia-free intervals and significantly lower AF burden, thus reducing the rate of its complications. Particularly encouraging evidence is now available for patients with persistent AF or concomitant heart failure, situations in which catheter ablation could even be a first-line option. In the field of stroke prevention, targeting the left atrial appendage with percutaneous device implantation may reduce the risk of thromboembolism to lower rates than that predicted with conventional ischemic risk scores. Left atrial appendage occlusion through the approved Watchman or Amplatzer devices is a well-established, efficacious, and safe method, especially in high-ischemic and bleeding risk patients with contraindications for oral anticoagulation.