ArticleHeart rhythm O22025
Novel vs established cryoballoon ablation system for atrial fibrillation: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Heart rhythm O2, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comparative analysis of newest-generation variable-diameter cryoballoon with pulsed-field ablation for the treatment of atrial fibrillation: the CRYO-PULSE Study.Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Recently, a novel cryoballoon ablation system (POLARx) for the treatment of atrial fibrillation has been introduced. Objective: We aimed at systematically reviewing the efficacy and safety of the POLARx compared with the ArcticFront system. Methods: Structured systematic database search for articles published between 2021 and 2024 reporting the efficacy and/or safety of the POLARx system for atrial fibrillation ablation. The co-primary endpoints were the long-term efficacy and safety of the POLARx system. Results: Of the 24 studies with 5364 patients (weighted mean age 62.4 years) included, 15 compared the POLARx system (1746 patients) with the ArcticFront system (2282 patients). Despite significantly lower temperatures at isolation (POLARx -46.3 °C, ArcticFront -31.6 °C, Conclusion: The novel POLARx system provided similar efficiency and acute/long-term efficacy but showed a higher incidence of phrenic nerve palsies compared with the ArcticFront system.
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.