ReviewThe Egyptian heart journal : (EHJ) : official bulletin of the Egyptian Society of Cardiology2025
Comparative safety and effectiveness of cryoballoon versus radiofrequency ablation for atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in The Egyptian heart journal : (EHJ) : official bulletin of the Egyptian Society of Cardiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOver the past fifty years, the incidence of atrial fibrillation (AF) has tripled. Traditionally, the main treatment for this condition has been pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) performed using radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA). However, another technique known as cryoballoon ablation (CBA) has been developed as another option for managing this heart rhythm disorder. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of CBA and RFCA for the treatment of AF.
methodsThis study compared the safety and effectiveness of CBA and RFCA for the treatment of AF using a thorough review of randomized controlled trials up until June 1, 2023.
resultsThe results revealed that CBA and RFCA had similar effectiveness and safety profiles in achieving freedom from AF (RR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.93 to 1.07, p = 0.99) and paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF) (RR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.89 to 1.10, p = 0.79). CBA was faster (MD = - 23.99; 95% CI: - 32.98 to - 15.00; p < 0.00001) with a higher risk of phrenic nerve palsy (RR = 6.88; 95% CI: 3.26 to 14.50, p < 0.00001). Acute PVI rate (RR = 1.0; 95% CI: 0.99 to 1.01, p = 0.95), overall complications (RR = 1.37; 95% CI: 0.93 to 2.01, p = 0.11), pericardial effusion (RR = 0.59; 95% CI: 0.25 to 1.41, p = 0.24), and fluoroscopy time (MD = 1.63; 95% CI: - 2.06 5.32; p = 0.39) did not significantly differ between the two procedures.
conclusionsCBA and RFCA offer similar outcomes for patients with AF and PAF, with CBA being quicker but carrying a slightly higher risk of phrenic nerve palsy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.