SynthesisFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2025
Comparative efficacy and safety of POLARx versus Arctic front advance pro cryoballoon systems for pulmonary vein isolation in atrial fibrillation: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 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
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cryoballoon (CB) ablation is a well-established treatment for atrial fibrillation (AF). The Arctic Front Advance Pro™ (AFA-Pro) system, in use for over a decade, has demonstrated consistent efficacy and safety. Recently, the POLARx™, a novel CB system, has gained attention due to its advanced design and comparable clinical outcomes. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing AFA-Pro and POLARx in patients undergoing CB ablation for AF. Outcomes included procedural parameters (procedure time, ablation time, fluoroscopy time, balloon nadir temperature) and safety endpoints such as phrenic nerve palsy (PNP) and Stroke rates. Results: There were no significant differences between POLARx and AFA in acute PVI success (OR = 0.49, P = 0.24), procedure time (MD = 4.40, P = 0.14), ablation time (SMD = 0.12, P = 0.10), fluoroscopy time (MD = 0.34, P = 0.67), freezing time and stroke rates. POLARx showed a significant advantage in balloon nadir temperature (P < 0.00001) and demonstrated longer time to isolation (TTI) in the RSPV (MD = 5.49, P = 0.05) and RIPV (MD = 4.54, P = 0.04), while TTI was similar for the LSPV and LIPV. However, POLARx was associated with a higher risk of PNP (OR = 1.87, P = 0.007). Conclusion: POLARx demonstrates lower balloon nadir temperature but is associated with a higher risk of phrenic nerve palsy compared to AFA-Pro. These findings provide important insights into the procedural efficiency and safety profiles of these cryoablation systems. Systematic Review Registration: identifier CRD42024588371.
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.