Next Article in Journal
Statins Associated with Better Long-Term Outcomes in Aged Hospitalized Patients with COPD: A Real-World Experience from Pay-for-Performance Program
Next Article in Special Issue
Dynamics of Soluble Factors and Double-Negative T Cells Associated with Response to Renal Denervation in Resistant Hypertension Patients
Previous Article in Journal
COVID-19 Vaccination Intention Associated with Behaviors towards Protection and Perceptions Regarding the Pandemic
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JPM
Volume 12
Issue 2
10.3390/jpm12020298
jpm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Direct Comparison of Second-Generation Cryoballoon Ablation and Contact Force-Sensing Radiofrequency Ablation in Patients with Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation

by
Yoga Waranugraha
1,
Ardian Rizal
2 and
Yoga Yuniadi
3,*
1
Department of Cardiology and Vascular Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Brawijaya, Universitas Brawijaya Hospital, Malang 65142, Indonesia
2
Department of Cardiology and Vascular Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Brawijaya, Dr. Saiful Anwar General Hospital, Malang 65111, Indonesia
3
Department of Cardiology and Vascular Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Indonesia, National Cardiovascular Center Harapan Kita, Jakarta Barat 11420, Indonesia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Pers. Med. 2022, 12(2), 298; https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm12020298
Submission received: 13 January 2022 / Revised: 12 February 2022 / Accepted: 14 February 2022 / Published: 17 February 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Challenges and Prospects in Cardiology)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The superiority of second-generation cryoballoon (2G-CB) ablation versus contact force-sensing radiofrequency (CF-RF) ablation in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF) was assessed in this systematic review and meta-analysis. Freedom from atrial tachyarrhythmias (ATAs) (OR = 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.68 to 1.17; p = 0.41), freedom from AF (OR = 0.93; 95% CI = 0.65 to 1.35; p = 0.72), and acute pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) (OR = 1.17; 95% CI = 0.54 to 2.53; p = 0.70) between 2G-CB ablation and CF-RF ablation were not different. The procedure time for the 2G-CB ablation was shorter (MD = −18.78 min; 95% CI = −27.72 to −9.85 min; p < 0.01), while the fluoroscopy time was similar (MD = 2.66 min; 95% CI = −0.52 to 5.83 min; p = 0.10). In the 2G-CB ablation group, phrenic nerve paralysis was more common (OR = 5.74; 95% CI = 1.80 to 18.31; p = < 0.01). Regarding freedom from ATAs, freedom from AF, and acute PVI, these findings imply that 2G-CB ablation is not superior to CF-RF ablation in paroxysmal AF. Although faster than CF-RF ablation, 2G-CB ablation has a greater risk of phrenic nerve paralysis.

1. Introduction

In daily clinical practice, the most common arrhythmia encountered by the physician is atrial fibrillation (AF) [1,2]. In 2017, the global prevalence of AF was estimated to be 37.6 million cases, with an increase of more than 60% expected by 2050 [3]. AF is strongly associated with significant mortality, morbidity, and decreased quality of life [4,5,6,7]. Ectopic beats originating from the pulmonary veins (PVs) are responsible for the initiation of paroxysmal AF [8,9]. Based on the latest guidelines from the European Society of Cardiology (ESC), pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) using catheter ablation is recommended for rhythm control strategy [10]. In patients with paroxysmal AF, this has the highest efficacy as a stand-alone procedure [11]. The complete PVI can be achieved by the radiofrequency or cryoballoon ablation procedures. However, several randomized control trials (RCTs) demonstrated conflicting data [12,13,14,15]. A meta-analysis of RCTs revealed equal efficacy between them [16].
Until now, either “freezing” or “burning” approaches are still being debated, and innovations are constantly being made to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the PVI procedure. The second-generation cryoballoon (2G-CB) catheter was introduced in 2012 to gain more uniform freezing over the whole distal hemisphere of the balloon [17,18]. Compared to the first-generation cryoballoon (1G-CB) catheter, ablation using a 2G-CB catheter demonstrated a similar procedure-related complications rate, reduced fluoroscopy time, shorter procedure time, and higher procedural success rate [19,20]. On the other hand, the contact force-sensing radiofrequency (CF-RF) catheter was released in 2014. It is equipped with the specific ability to measure real-time catheter-tissue contact force to guide ablation more precisely [21,22]. Compared with non-contact force-sensing radiofrequency (non-CF-RF) ablation, CF-RF ablation revealed lower acute PV reconnection [23] and one-year AF recurrence [24]. We needed to know whether 2G-CB ablation was superior to CF-RF ablation for PVI in patients with paroxysmal AF. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Literature Search

When conducting this systematic review and meta-analysis, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement was followed [25]. Relevant articles comparing 2G-CB ablation with RF-CF ablation for paroxysmal AF recorded in scientific electronic databases such as ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane, ProQuest, PubMed, and ScienceDirect were collected and identified according to the eligibility criteria until 31 January 2021. The following keywords were used to find relevant articles: “ablation” or “catheter ablation,” AND “pulmonary vein isolation” or “PVI,” AND “second-generation cryoballoon” or “2nd generation cryoballoon,” AND “contact force radiofrequency,” or “contact force-sensing radiofrequency,” AND “paroxysmal atrial fibrillation” or “paroxysmal AF.” We also gathered and identified potentially relevant papers from the reference lists of the examined articles. Table S1 summarizes the detailed search strategy. The titles, abstracts, and keywords of the identified records were reviewed. Following that, the full texts of all eligible records were examined.

2.2. Eligibility Criteria

The inclusion criteria included: (1) RCTs or cohort studies comparing 2G-CB ablation and CF-RF ablation for PVI in paroxysmal AF patients; (2) articles written in English; (3) catheter ablation aimed for rhythm control strategy; (4) sample size of at least 20 patients in each study arm; (5) follow-up duration more than three months; (6) clear information about the arrhythmia detection method; and (7) articles providing detailed relevant data on the outcomes of each study arm. Articles were excluded if they: (1) were duplicates; (2) were sub-studies of the involved studies; (3) included non-paroxysmal AF patients; (4) had incomparable treatment and control groups; (5) did not report the outcomes of interest.

2.3. Exposure and Outcomes

Patients were separated into two groups based on the ablation strategy: the “2G-CB group” and the “CF-RF group.” Freedom from atrial tachyarrhythmias (ATAs) after a single catheter ablation procedure was the primary outcome of this study. The secondary outcome involved: (1) freedom from AF after a single catheter ablation procedure; (2) acute PVI after a single catheter ablation procedure; (3) all procedural complications; (4) pericardial effusion/cardiac tamponade; (5) phrenic nerve palsy; (6) vascular complications; (7) procedure time; and (8) fluoroscopy time.

2.4. Quality Assessment and Data Extraction

Our study included RCTs and cohort studies comparing 2G-CB ablation and CF-RF ablation. The modified Jadad scale, which comprises eight criteria, was used to assess the quality of RCTs [26]. The total modified Jadad scale ranges from 0 to 8. RCTs with a modified Jadad score of 4 to 8 were considered high-quality [27,28]. For cohort studies, the Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies (MINORS) was used to assess quality. MINORS has 12 variables [29]. Comparative cohort studies with MINORS scores of 19 to 24 were considered high-quality [30]. All essential information about: (1) the first author name; (2) publication date; (3) study design; (4) 3D mapping system; (5) cryoballoon ablation (CBA) strategy; (6) radiofrequency ablation (RFA) strategy; (7) blanking period; (8) follow-up period; (9) antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) treatment during follow-up period; (10) arrhythmia detection method; (11) treatment arms; (12) number of patients; (13) age; (14) sex; (15) comorbid diseases such as hypertension, coronary artery disease (CAD), heart failure, sleep apnea, diabetes mellitus (DM), stroke, or transient ischemic attack (TIA); and (16) echocardiographic variables such as left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), left atrial volume index (LAVI), and left atrial diameter (LAD), were extracted from each article. The continuous and categorical data were presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD) and number (percentage), respectively. We calculated the mean ± SD from the median and interquartile range (IQR) [31,32].

2.5. Statistical Analysis

We followed standard guidelines to conduct the statistical analysis [33]. Heterogeneity among the involved studies was analyzed using Cochran’s Q test and inconsistency index (I2). The p-value of Cochrane’s Q test < 0.1 or I2 > 50% was considered as the presence of heterogeneity [34,35,36]. The pooled effects were determined using a random-effects model because of various study types (RCTs and cohort studies) and the wide range of potential treatment effect sizes across studies [37]. The pooled effects were presented as odds ratio (0R) or mean difference (MD) for dichotomous or continuous outcomes, respectively. We also estimated their 95% confidence interval (CI). Statistically significance was considered to be a p-value < 0.05. To find the publication bias, we utilized a mix of Egger’s and Begg’s tests. Egger’s and Begg’s tests revealed publication bias with a p-value of 0.05 [38,39,40,41]. The statistical analysis was performed by two investigators using a combination of Review Manager (RevMan) version 5.3 (Cochrane, Copenhagen, Denmark) and Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (CMA) version 3.0 (Biostat, Englewood, NJ, USA).

3. Results

3.1. Study Selection Process

Of the initial 752 collected articles, 12 studies were eligible to be included in this systematic review and meta-analysis [42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53]. A flowchart describing the study selection process is presented in Figure 1. The study quality assessment is shown in Tables S2 and S3.

3.2. Baseline Characteristics

Our current systematic review and meta-analysis included one multicenter RCT [42], two single-center RCTs [43,51], six single-center cohort studies [44,45,46,47,50,53], and three multicenter cohort studies [48,49,52]. Electro-anatomical mapping was conducted using CARTO 3 in nine studies [42,43,44,45,46,47,48,51,52]. In three studies, electro-anatomical mapping was performed using CARTO 3 or EnSite [49,50,53]. Only a study from Squara et al. [49] used the 23 or 28 mm 2G-CB catheters. However, in other studies, the 28-mm 2G-CB catheter was used to conduct cryoballoon ablation [42,43,44,45,46,47,48,50,51,52,53]. Cryoballoon ablation procedures were conducted one to two times for each pulmonary vein, with durations ranging from 180 to 240 s. Radiofrequency ablation procedures were conducted using the CF-RF catheter [42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53]. In all studies except the studies from Giannopoulos et al. [42] and Matta et al. [48], the pulmonary veins were isolated using the low-power and/or long-duration radiofrequency ablation approach [43,44,45,46,47,49,50,51,52,53]. All included studies had a three-month blanking period [43,44,45,46,47,48,50,52,53], except the studies from Giannopoulos et al. [42], Squara et al. [49], and Watanabe et al. [51]. The shortest follow-up period was six months [42]. Only three studies allowed AAD administration during the follow-up period [45,48,51]. Arrhythmia detection methods in all studies were conducted using ambulatory cardiac monitoring devices [42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53]. The baseline characteristics of the included studies are summarized in Table 1.
A total 1419 of patients, including 734 patients in the 2G-CB group and 685 patients in the CF-RF group, were involved in this study. Around 65.3% of the study population were male. The mean age of the patients was 60.8 ± 1.1 years old. The prevalence of comorbid conditions such as hypertension, CAD, heart failure, sleep apnea, DM, and stroke or TIA were 45.6%, 9.9%, 4.0%, 7.4%, 9.1%, and 6.6%, respectively. The mean LVEF was 62 ± 1.3% and the mean LAD was 40.0 ± 1.1 mm. Data on LAVI were available in the study from Jourda et al. [46]. The mean LAVI was 40.7 ± 2.1 mL/m2. Table 2 presents the summary of baseline characteristics of patients from the involved studies.

3.3. Heterogeneity and Publication Bias

Heterogeneity was found in procedure time and fluoroscopy time (p-value of heterogeneity <0.1 and I2 > 50%). For the other outcomes, we did not find any heterogeneity. We also did not find any publication bias, as the p-values for the Begg’s and Egger’s tests were ≥0.05 for all outcomes of interest (Table 3 and Table 4). Therefore, sensitivity analysis was not conducted.

3.4. Primary Outcome

The primary outcome of freedom from ATAs was not significantly different between 2G-CB and CF-RF ablation (OR = 0.89; 95% CI = 0.68 to 1.17; p = 0.41) (Figure 2 and Table 3).

3.5. Secondary Outcomes

From the efficacy aspect, we did not find a significant difference in freedom from AF after single ablation procedures between the two groups (OR = 0.93; 95% CI = 0.65 to 1.35; p = 0.72) (Figure 2 and Table 3). There was no difference in acute success of PVI between groups (OR = 1.17; 95% CI = 0.54 to 2.53; p = 0.70). The procedure time was shorter in the 2G-CB ablation group compared to the CF-RF ablation group (MD = −18.78 min; 95% CI = −27.72 to −9.85 min; p < 0.01). However, both groups needed similar fluoroscopy time (MD = 2.66 min; 95% CI = −0.52 to 5.83 min; p = 0.10) (Figure 3, Table 3 and Table 4). From a safety aspect, the incidences of all-procedural complications (OR = 1.28; 95% CI = 0.75 to 2.18; p = 0.36), pericardial effusion/cardiac tamponade (OR = 0.29; 95% CI = 0.07 to 1.19; p = 0.09), and vascular complications (OR = 0.78; 95% CI = 0.34 to 1.80; p = 0.57) in both groups were not significantly different. However, 2G-CB ablation was associated with greater incidence of phrenic nerve paralysis (OR = 5.74; 95% CI = 1.80 to 18.31; p = < 0.01) (Figure 4 and Table 3).

4. Discussion

First, we discovered that 2G-CB ablation for paroxysmal AF was as effective as CF-RF ablation regarding freedom from ATAs, freedom from AF, and acute PVI. Second, even though the fluoroscopy times were comparable, the 2G-CB ablation procedure can be completed faster than the CF-RF ablation procedure. Finally, 2GCB ablation was associated with a greater rate of phrenic nerve paralysis. Furthermore, the 2G-CB group experienced all phrenic nerve paralysis problems.
In today’s paradigm, the electrical isolation of the pulmonary veins from the left atrium is fundamental for most catheter-based ablation strategies in paroxysmal AF. However, there are no specific recommendations from the recent guidelines regarding the choice of CBA or RFA [10,54,55]. CBA and RFA were conducted through femoral access and trans-septal approach. In RFA, operators conduct PVI by point-by-point application of radiofrequency energy under electro-anatomical navigation to generate a contiguous circular lesion surrounding the PV antrum. In CBA, operators conduct PVI by directing the device under fluoroscopic guidance to the PV antrum, advancing it toward the PV, and freezing the surrounding tissue by filling the balloon with a liquid refrigerant [15,56]. RFA results in tissue necrosis by tissue heating, while CBA results in tissue necrosis by the freeze and thaw cycle [57]. PVI using RFA is more complex and time-consuming because it requires complicated catheter manipulations and multiple radiofrequency applications. CBA was developed to simplify the PVI by allowing a single-shot ablation. Compared to the 1G-CB catheter, the 2G-CB catheter has doubled injection ports located more distally in the catheter shaft. This results in a more uniform freezing area on the surface of the balloon [58,59]. On the other hand, the CF-RF catheter is equipped with a contact force sensor on the catheter tip. This can provide important information about the contact force, which is useful for the operator to perform ablation precisely and accurately [60].
At present, the largest RCT comparing CBA and RFA in paroxysmal AF is the FIRE AND ICE trial. This study revealed that CBA was not inferior to RFA regarding efficacy. The overall safety of both procedures was not significantly different. In the FIRE AND ICE trial, the CBA procedures were conducted using 1G-CB or 2G-CB catheters. Moreover, data on CF-RF catheters were not reported in that trial [15]. The FreezeAF study also revealed the non-inferiority of CBA compared to RFA for rhythm control in paroxysmal AF patients [14]. A meta-analysis of RCTs from Murray et al. [16] comparing CBA using 1G-CB or 2G-CB catheters and RFA demonstrated that CBA and RFA had equal efficacy. However, that meta-analysis did not provide information about the use of CF-RF catheters. A meta-analysis from Jiang et al. [61] revealed that 2G-CB ablation effectively decreased the recurrence rate of ATAs compared to RFA in paroxysmal AF patients specifically.
Buist et al. [62] conducted an RCT to compare 2G-CB ablation and CF-RF ablation in AF patients. However, that study included both paroxysmal AF and persistent AF. That study demonstrated that 2G-CB ablation provided better ATA-free survival and lower repeat ablation than CF-RF ablation. The CIRCA-DOSE study revealed that both procedures resulted in similar efficacy for paroxysmal AF during a one-year follow-up duration [63]. However, the study included patients with non-paroxysmal AF in the final analysis. A meta-analysis from Ravi et al., [64] which included RCT and cohort studies comparing CF-RF ablation and 2G-CB ablation, revealed that the efficacy between both groups was similar. Another meta-analysis from Wang et al. [65] that included RCTs showed that AF recurrence rates between both ablation strategies were comparable. However, the meta-analyses from Ravi et al. [64] and Wang et al. [65] involved both paroxysmal AF and persistent AF patients. Compared to the prior meta-analyses, our study specifically compared 2G-CB ablation and CF-RF ablation in patients with paroxysmal AF. Our study also revealed a similar success rate of acute PVI between groups. This result supported the previous study by Wang et al. [65].
Our study demonstrated that 2G-CB ablation in paroxysmal AF could be completed faster than CF-RF ablation. Our result was consistent and supported the previous meta-analyses from Ravi et al. [64] and Wang et al. [65]. 2G-CB ablation can be conducted faster because of its “single-shot” characteristic used throughout the PVI. On the other hand, CF-RF ablation needs a longer procedure time because of its “point-by-point” approach [13]. Previous meta-analyses demonstrated that fluoroscopy time was longer in 2G-CB ablation than in CF-RF ablation [65]. However, in our study, both groups revealed no significantly different fluoroscopy time. We found significant heterogeneity while conducting data analysis of procedure time and fluoroscopy time. That was because of the diverse habits and experience of fluoroscopy utilization among different heart rhythm centers. Increased experience of the operator in performing AF ablation could reduce fluoroscopy time [48]. High power and short-duration (HPSD) radiofrequency ablation procedures are now being conducted to reduce overall procedure time in CF-RF ablation [66]. A study from Baher et al. [67] revealed that compared to the conventional method (35 W power for 10 to 30 s), the HPSD approach (50 W for 5 s) had a shorter procedure time (149 ± 65 min vs. 251 ± 101 min; p < 0.001). At present, in paroxysmal AF patients, no study has specifically compared 2G-CB ablation and HPSD CF-RF ablation. Moreover, almost all CF-RF ablation procedures in this meta-analysis were conducted using the conventional method (25 to 35 W power for at least 20 s) [43,44,45,46,47,49,50,51,52,53].
From the safety perspective, our study revealed that 2G-CB ablation and CF-RF ablation did not have significantly different rates of all-procedural complications, pericardial effusion/cardiac tamponade, and vascular complications. Our results supported the findings of prior studies. However, those meta-analyses did not provide data about pericardial effusion/cardiac tamponade and vascular complications [64,65]. Our result revealed that the incidence of pericardial effusion/cardiac tamponade was not significantly different in both groups. However, in a prior meta-analysis from Jiang et al., [61] 2G-CB ablation had a lower rate of pericardial tamponade than RFA (OR = 0.32; 95% CI = 0.13 to 0.78; p = 0.01). The possible explanations are: (1) the meta-analysis from Jiang et al. [61] included RFA using the non-CF-RF catheter and CF-RF catheter; (2) our meta-analysis only included CF-RF ablation; (3) the CF-RF catheter provides efficient transfer of heat energy to the ablation target [21]; and (4) controlling radiofrequency power according to contact force appears to prevent or reduce impedance rise, steam pop, and pericardial effusion/tamponade without compromising lesion effectiveness [68]. The risk of phrenic nerve paralysis in our meta-analysis was greater in the 2G-CB group than in the CF-RF group. Our result was similar to and supported the findings of prior meta-analyses [61,64].
We are aware of no other systematic review and meta-analysis of 2G-CB versus RF-CF ablation for individuals with paroxysmal AF. There was no evidence of publication bias in this study. This meta-analysis, on the other hand, has significant limitations that have been highlighted. First, in this systematic review and meta-analysis, RCTs and cohort studies were involved [42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53]. Second, data about the specific comorbidities were not always completely available in most studies [42,43,44,45,46,47,49,50,51,52,53]. Third, the definition of freedom from ATAs among the included studies was varied [42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53]. Fourth, even though almost all included studies used 12-lead ECG and Holter monitor as the arrhythmia detection methods [42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52], two studies used additional methods such as external loop recorders and auto-triggered event monitors [50,53]. Lastly, there were differences in blanking and follow-up periods duration and the use of AADs during those periods. These limitations could be essential confounders that may have affected the final results.

5. Conclusions

In terms of freedom from ATAs, AF, and acute PVI, 2G-CB ablation is not superior to CF-RF ablation in paroxysmal AF. Although the fluoroscopy duration is not significantly different between the two groups, the 2G-CB ablation procedure can be completed faster than the CF-RF ablation procedure. Compared to CF-RF ablation, 2G-CB ablation has a higher rate of phrenic nerve paralysis.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/jpm12020298/s1, Table S1: Detailed search strategy, Table S2: Modified Jadad scale, Table S3: Methodological index for non-randomized studies.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, writing—original draft preparation, and writing—review and editing were performed by Y.W., A.R. and Y.Y. All authors had equal contribution and were involved in all part of this systematic review and meta-analysis. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This systematic review and meta-analysis did not receive any financial or grant support from any sources.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethical review was not requested because all authors only worked with published data.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

All data are presented within the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Zulkifly, H.; Lip, G.Y.H.; Lane, D.A. Epidemiology of atrial fibrillation. Int. J. Clin. Pract. 2018, 72, e13070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. Virani, S.S.; Alonso, A.; Benjamin, E.J.; Bittencourt, M.S.; Callaway, C.W.; Carson, A.P.; Chamberlain, A.M.; Chang, A.R.; Cheng, S.; Delling, F.N.; et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics—2020 update: A report from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2020, 141, e139–e596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Lippi, G.; Sanchis-Gomar, F.; Cervellin, G. Global epidemiology of atrial fibrillation: An increasing epidemic and public health challenge. Int. J. Stroke 2021, 16, 217–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Freeman, J.V.; Simon, D.N.; Go, A.S.; Spertus, J.; Fonarow, G.; Gersh, B.J.; Hylek, E.M.; Kowey, P.R.; Mahaffey, K.W.; Thomas, L.E.; et al. Association between atrial fibrillation symptoms, quality of life, and patient outcomes: Results from the Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation (ORBIT-AF). Circ. Cardiovasc. Qual. Outcomes 2015, 8, 393–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Pistoia, F.; Sacco, S.; Tiseo, C.; Degan, D.; Ornello, R.; Carolei, A. The epidemiology of atrial fibrillation and stroke. Cardiol. Clin. 2016, 34, 255–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Magnussen, C.; Niiranen, T.J.; Ojeda, F.M.; Gianfagna, F.; Blankenberg, S.; Njølstad, I.; Vartiainen, E.; Sans, S.; Pasterkamp, G.; Hughes, M.; et al. Sex differences and similarities in atrial fibrillation epidemiology, risk factors, and mortality in community cohorts: Results from the BiomarCaRE Consortium (Biomarker for Cardiovascular Risk Assessment in Europe). Circulation 2017, 136, 1588–1597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Ziff, O.; Carter, P.R.; McGowan, J.; Uppal, H.; Chandran, S.; Russell, S.; Bainey, K.R.; Potluri, R. The interplay between atrial fibrillation and heart failure on long-term mortality and length of stay: Insights from the, United Kingdom ACALM registry. Int. J. Cardiol. 2018, 252, 117–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Haïssaguerre, M.; Jaïs, P.; Shah, D.C.; Takahashi, A.; Hocini, M.; Quiniou, G.; Garrigue, S.; Le Mouroux, A.; Le Métayer, P.; Clémenty, J. Spontaneous initiation of atrial fibrillation by ectopic beats originating in the pulmonary veins. N. Engl. J. Med. 1998, 339, 659–666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Mahida, S.; Sacher, F.; Derval, N.; Berte, B.; Yamashita, S.; Hooks, D.; Denis, A.; Amraoui, S.; Hocini, M.; Haissaguerre, M.; et al. Science linking pulmonary veins and atrial fibrillation. Arrhythmia Electrophysiol. Rev. 2015, 4, 40–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Hindricks, G.; Potpara, T.; Dagres, N.; Arbelo, E.; Bax, J.J.; Blomström-Lundqvist, C.; Boriani, G.; Castella, M.; Dan, G.-A.; Dilaveris, P.E.; et al. 2020 ESC guidelines for the diagnosis and management of atrial fibrillation developed in collaboration with the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS): The Task Force for the diagnosis and management of atrial fibrillation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) developed with the special contribution of the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) of the ESC. Eur. Heart J. 2021, 42, 373–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Santangeli, P.; Lin, D. Catheter ablation of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: Have we achieved cure with pulmonary vein isolation? Methodist DeBakey Cardiovasc. J. 2015, 11, 71–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Pérez-Castellano, N.; Fernández-Cavazos, R.; Moreno, J.; Cañadas, V.; Conde, A.; González-Ferrer, J.J.; Macaya, C.; Pérez-Villacastín, J. The COR trial: A randomized study with continuous rhythm monitoring to compare the efficacy of cryoenergy and radiofrequency for pulmonary vein isolation. Hear. Rhythm 2014, 11, 8–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Hunter, R.J.; Baker, V.; Finlay, M.; Duncan, E.R.; Lovell, M.J.; Tayebjee, M.H.; Ullah, W.; Siddiqui, M.S.; McLean, A.; Richmond, L.; et al. Point-by-point radiofrequency ablation versus the cryoballoon or a novel combined approach: A randomized trial comparing 3 methods of pulmonary vein isolation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (the Cryo versus RF trial). J. Cardiovasc. Electrophysiol. 2015, 26, 1307–1314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Luik, A.; Radzewitz, A.; Kieser, M.; Walter, M.; Bramlage, P.; Hörmann, P.; Schmidt, K.; Horn, N.; Brinkmeier-Theofanopoulou, M.; Kunzmann, K.; et al. Cryoballoon versus open irrigated radiofrequency ablation in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: The prospective, randomized, controlled, noninferiority FreezeAF study. Circulation 2015, 132, 1311–1319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Kuck, K.-H.; Brugada, J.; Fürnkranz, A.; Metzner, A.; Ouyang, F.; Chun, K.J.; Elvan, A.; Arentz, T.; Bestehorn, K.; Pocock, S.J.; et al. Cryoballoon or radiofrequency ablation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. N. Engl. J. Med. 2016, 374, 2235–2245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Murray, M.-I.; Arnold, A.; Younis, M.; Varghese, S.; Zeiher, A.M. Cryoballoon versus radiofrequency ablation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Clin. Res. Cardiol. 2018, 107, 658–669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Georgiopoulos, G.; Tsiachris, D.; Manolis, A.S. Cryoballoon ablation of atrial fibrillation: A practical and effective approach: Cryoablation of atrial fibrillation. Clin. Cardiol. 2016, 40, 333–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  18. Andrade, J.G. Cryoballoon ablation for pulmonary vein isolation. J. Cardiovasc. Electrophysiol. 2020, 31, 2128–2135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Di Giovanni, G.; Wauters, K.; Chierchia, G.-B.; Sieira, J.; Levinstein, M.; Conte, G.; de Asmundis, C.; Baltogiannis, G.; Saitoh, Y.; Ciconte, G.; et al. One-year follow-up after single procedure cryoballoon ablation: A comparison between the first- and second-generation balloon. J. Cardiovasc. Electrophysiol. 2014, 25, 834–839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Liu, J.; Kaufmann, J.; Kriatselis, C.; Fleck, E.; Gerds-Li, J.H. Second generation of cryoballoons can improve efficiency of cryoablation for atrial fibrillation. Pacing Clin. Electrophysiol. 2014, 38, 129–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ariyarathna, N.; Kumar, S.; Thomas, S.P.; Stevenson, W.G.; Michaud, G.F. Role of contact force sensing in catheter ablation of cardiac arrhythmias. JACC Clin. Electrophysiol. 2018, 4, 707–723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Frisch, D.R.; Dikdan, S.J. Clinical and procedural effects of transitioning to contact force guided ablation for atrial fibrillation. J. Atr. Fibrillation 2019, 11, 2081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Ullah, W.; McLean, A.; Tayebjee, M.H.; Gupta, D.; Ginks, M.R.; Haywood, G.A.; O’Neill, M.; Lambiase, P.; Earley, M.J.; Schilling, R.J. Randomized trial comparing pulmonary vein isolation using the SmartTouch catheter with or without real-time contact force data. Heart Rhythm 2016, 13, 1761–1767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  24. Marijon, E.; Fazaa, S.; Narayanan, K.; Guy-Moyat, B.; Bouzeman, A.; Providência, R.; Treguer, F.; Combes, N.; Bortone, A.; Boveda, S.; et al. Real-time contact force sensing for pulmonary vein isolation in the setting of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: Procedural and 1-year results: Real-time contact force sensing for pulmonary vein isolation. J. Cardiovasc. Electrophysiol. 2013, 25, 130–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Liberati, A.; Altman, D.G.; Tetzlaff, J.; Mulrow, C.; Gøtzsche, P.C.; Ioannidis, J.P.A.; Clarke, M.; Devereaux, P.J.; Kleijnen, J.; Moher, D. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009, 6, e1000100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Oremus, M.; Wolfson, C.; Perrault, A.; Demers, L.; Momoli, F.; Moride, Y. interrater reliability of the modified Jadad quality scale for systematic reviews of Alzheimer’s disease drug trials. Dement. Geriatr. Cogn. Disord. 2001, 12, 232–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Zhang, Y.; Zhou, L.; Liu, X.; Liu, L.; Wu, Y.; Zhao, Z.; Yi, D.; Yi, D. The effectiveness of the problem-based learning teaching model for use in introductory Chinese undergraduate medical courses: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0120884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Waranugraha, Y.; Rizal, A.; Setiawan, D.; Aziz, I.J. Additional complex fractionated atrial electrogram ablation does not improve the outcomes of non-paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Indian Heart J. 2020, 73, 63–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Slim, K.; Nini, E.; Forestier, D.; Kwiatkowski, F.; Panis, Y.; Chipponi, J. Methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS): Development and validation of a new instrument. ANZ J. Surg. 2003, 73, 712–716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Öhlin, A.; Karlsson, L.; Senorski, E.H.; Jónasson, P.; Ahldén, M.; Baranto, A.; Ayeni, O.R.; Sansone, M. Quality assessment of prospective cohort studies evaluating arthroscopic treatment for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome: A systematic review. Orthop. J. Sports Med. 2019, 7, 232596711983853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Wan, X.; Wang, W.; Liu, J.; Tong, T. Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range and/or interquartile range. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2014, 14, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Luo, D.; Wan, X.; Liu, J.; Tong, T. Optimally estimating the sample mean from the sample size, median, mid-range, and/or mid-quartile range. Stat. Methods Med. Res. 2018, 27, 1785–1805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  33. Cleophas, T.J.; Zwinderman, A.H. Modern Meta-Analysis: Review and Update of Methodologies; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  34. Higgins, J.P.T.; Thompson, S.G.; Deeks, J.J.; Altman, D.G. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003, 327, 557–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  35. Fletcher, J. What is heterogeneity and is it important? BMJ 2007, 334, 94–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Waranugraha, Y.; Rizal, A.; Setiawan, D.; Aziz, I.J. The benefit of atrioventricular junction ablation for permanent atrial fibrillation and heart failure patients receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Indian Pacing Electrophysiol. J. 2021, 21, 101–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Borenstein, M.; Hedges, L.V.; Higgins, J.P.T.; Rothstein, H.R. A basic introduction to fixed-effect and random-effects models for meta-analysis. Res. Synth. Methods 2010, 1, 97–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Begg, C.B.; Mazumdar, M. Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics 1994, 50, 1088–1101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Egger, M.; Smith, G.D.; Schneider, M.; Minder, C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997, 315, 629–634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Waranugraha, Y.; Rizal, A.; Syaban, M.F.R.; Faratisha, I.F.D.; Erwan, N.E.; Yunita, K.C. Direct comparison of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant versus warfarin for stroke prevention in non-valvular atrial fibrillation: A systematic review and meta-analysis of real-world evidence. Egypt. Heart J. 2021, 73, 70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Syaban, M.F.R.; Yunita, K.C.; Faratisha, I.F.D.; Erwan, N.E.; Waranugraha, Y.; Rizal, A. Efficacy and safety of apixaban vs. warfarin in atrial fibrillation patients: Systematical review and meta-analysis. Heart Sci. J. 2022, 3, 28–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Giannopoulos, G.; Kossyvakis, C.; Vrachatis, D.; Aggeli, C.; Tsitsinakis, G.; Letsas, K.; Tsiachris, D.; Tsoukala, S.; Efremidis, M.; Katritsis, D.; et al. Effect of cryoballoon and radiofrequency ablation for pulmonary vein isolation on left atrial function in patients with nonvalvular paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: A prospective randomized study (Cryo-LAEF study). J. Cardiovasc. Electrophysiol. 2019, 30, 991–998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Gunawardene, M.A.; Hoffmann, B.A.; Schaeffer, B.; Chung, D.-U.; Moser, J.; Akbulak, R.O.; Jularic, M.; Eickholt, C.; Nuehrich, J.; Meyer, C.; et al. Influence of energy source on early atrial fibrillation recurrences: A comparison of cryoballoon vs. radiofrequency current energy ablation with the endpoint of unexcitability in pulmonary vein isolation. EP Eur. 2018, 20, 43–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Hassan, W.S.; Zaky, S.H.; Mohamed, K.H.; Ibrahim, M.M. Smart touch radiofrequency catheter ablation versus cryoballoon ablation of pulmonary veins in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. Open Access Maced. J. Med. Sci. 2020, 8, 563–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Hisazaki, K.; Hasegawa, K.; Kaseno, K.; Miyazaki, S.; Amaya, N.; Shiomi, Y.; Tama, N.; Ikeda, H.; Fukuoka, Y.; Morishita, T.; et al. Endothelial damage and thromboembolic risk after pulmonary vein isolation using the latest ablation technologies: A comparison of the second-generation cryoballoon vs. contact force-sensing radiofrequency ablation. Heart Vessel. 2018, 34, 509–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Jourda, F.; Providencia, R.; Marijon, E.; Bouzeman, A.; Hireche, H.; Khoueiry, Z.; Cardin, C.; Combes, N.; Combes, S.; Boveda, S.; et al. Contact-force guided radiofrequency vs. second-generation balloon cryotherapy for pulmonary vein isolation in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation—A prospective evaluation. EP Eur. 2015, 17, 225–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Kardos, A.; Kis, Z.; Som, Z.; Nagy, Z.; Foldesi, C. Two-year follow-up after contact force sensing radiofrequency catheter and second-generation cryoballoon ablation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: A comparative single centre study. BioMed Res. Int. 2016, 2016, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Matta, M.; Anselmino, M.; Ferraris, F.; Scaglione, M.; Gaita, F. Cryoballoon vs. radiofrequency contact force ablation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: A propensity score analysis. J. Cardiovasc. Med. 2018, 19, 141–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Squara, F.; Zhao, A.; Marijon, E.; Latcu, D.G.; Providência, R.; Di Giovanni, G.; Jauvert, G.; Jourda, F.; Chierchia, G.-B.; de Asmundis, C.; et al. Comparison between radiofrequency with contact force-sensing and second-generation cryoballoon for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation catheter ablation: A multicentre European evaluation. EP Eur. 2015, 17, 718–724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Tanaka, N.; Tanaka, K.; Ninomiya, Y.; Hirao, Y.; Oka, T.; Okada, M.; Inoue, H.; Nakamaru, R.; Takayasu, K.; Kitagaki, R.; et al. Comparison of the safety and efficacy of automated annotation-guided radiofrequency ablation and 2nd-generation cryoballoon ablation in paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. Circ. J. 2019, 83, 548–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Watanabe, R.; Sairaku, A.; Yoshida, Y.; Nanasato, M.; Kamiya, H.; Suzuki, H.; Ogura, Y.; Aoyama, Y.; Maeda, M.; Ando, M.; et al. Head-to-head comparison of acute and chronic pulmonary vein stenosis for cryoballoon versus radiofrequency ablation. Pacing Clin. Electrophysiol. 2018, 41, 376–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Xiao, F.-Y.; Ju, W.-Z.; Chen, H.-W.; Huang, W.-J.; Chen, M.-L. A comparative study of pericardial effusion and pleural effusion after cryoballoon ablation or radiofrequency catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation. J. Cardiovasc. Electrophysiol. 2020, 31, 1062–1067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Yokokawa, M.; Chugh, A.; Latchamsetty, R.; Ghanbari, H.; Crawford, T.; Jongnarangsin, K.; Cunnane, R.; Saeed, M.; Hornsby, K.; Krishnasamy, K.; et al. Ablation of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation using a second-generation cryoballoon catheter or contact-force sensing radiofrequency ablation catheter: A comparison of costs and long-term clinical outcomes. J. Cardiovasc. Electrophysiol. 2018, 29, 284–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. January, C.T.; Wann, L.S.; Alpert, J.S.; Calkins, H.; Cigarroa, J.E.; Cleveland, J.C.; Conti, J.B.; Ellinor, P.T.; Ezekowitz, M.D.; Field, M.E.; et al. 2014 AHA/ACC/HRS guideline for the management of patients with atrial fibrillation. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2014, 64, e1–e76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  55. Brieger, D.; Amerena, J.; Attia, J.; Bajorek, B.; Chan, K.H.; Connell, C.; Freedman, B.; Ferguson, C.; Hall, T.; Haqqani, H.; et al. National Heart Foundation of Australia and the Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand: Australian clinical guidelines for the diagnosis and management of atrial fibrillation 2018. Heart Lung Circ. 2018, 27, 1209–1266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  56. Michaud, G.F.; Kumar, S. Pulmonary vein isolation in the treatment of atrial fibrillation. Res. Rep. Clin. Cardiol. 2016, 7, 47–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Kaszala, K.; Ellenbogen, K.A. Biophysics of the second-generation cryoballoon: Cryobiology of the big freeze. Circ. Arrhythmia Electrophysiol. 2015, 8, 15–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Fürnkranz, A.; Bordignon, S.; Schmidt, B.; Gunawardene, M.; Schulte-Hahn, B.; Urban, V.; Bode, F.; Nowak, B.; Chun, J.K.R. Improved procedural efficacy of pulmonary vein isolation using the novel second-generation cryoballoon: Efficacy of the novel ccryoballoon. J. Cardiovasc. Electrophysiol. 2012, 24, 492–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Conti, S.; Moltrasio, M.; Fassini, G.; Tundo, F.; Riva, S.; Russo, A.D.; Casella, M.; Majocchi, B.; Marino, V.; De Iuliis, P.; et al. Comparison between first- and second-generation cryoballoon for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation ablation. Cardiol. Res. Pract. 2016, 2016, 5106127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Reddy, V.Y.; Shah, D.; Kautzner, J.; Schmidt, B.; Saoudi, N.; Herrera, C.; Jaïs, P.; Hindricks, G.; Peichl, P.; Yulzari, A.; et al. The relationship between contact force and clinical outcome during radiofrequency catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation in the TOCCATA study. Heart Rhythm 2012, 9, 1789–1795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Jiang, J.; Li, J.; Zhong, G.; Jiang, J. Efficacy and safety of the second-generation cryoballoons versus radiofrequency ablation for the treatment of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Interv. Card. Electrophysiol. 2016, 48, 69–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Buist, T.J.; Adiyaman, A.; Smit, J.J.J.; Misier, A.R.R.; Elvan, A. Arrhythmia-free survival and pulmonary vein reconnection patterns after second-generation cryoballoon and contact-force radiofrequency pulmonary vein isolation. Clin. Res. Cardiol. 2018, 107, 498–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Andrade, J.G.; Champagne, J.; Dubuc, M.; Deyell, M.W.; Verma, A.; Macle, L.; Leong-Sit, P.; Novak, P.; Badra-Verdu, M.; Sapp, J.; et al. Cryoballoon or radiofrequency ablation for atrial fibrillation assessed by continuous monitoring: A randomized clinical trial. Circulation 2019, 140, 1779–1788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Ravi, V.; Poudyal, A.; Pulipati, P.; Do, T.L.; Krishnan, K.; Trohman, R.G.; Sharma, P.S.; Huang, H.D. A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing second-generation cryoballoon and contact force radiofrequency ablation for initial ablation of paroxysmal and persistent atrial fibrillation. J. Cardiovasc. Electrophysiol. 2020, 31, 2559–2571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Wang, Y.; Wang, W.; Yao, J.; Chen, L.; Yi, S. Second-generation cryoballoon vs. contact-force sensing radiofrequency catheter ablation in atrial fibrillation: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J. Interv. Card. Electrophysiol. 2021, 60, 9–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Waranugraha, Y.; Rizal, A.; Firdaus, A.J.; Sihotang, F.A.; Akbar, A.R.; Lestari, D.D.; Firdaus, M.; Nurudinulloh, A.I. The superiority of high-power short-duration radiofrequency catheter ablation strategy for atrial fibrillation treatment: A systematic review and meta-analysis study. J. Arrhythmia 2021, 37, 975–989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Baher, A.; Kheirkhahan, M.; Rechenmacher, S.J.; Marashly, Q.; Kholmovski, E.G.; Siebermair, J.; Acharya, M.; Aljuaid, M.; Morris, A.K.; Kaur, G.; et al. High-power radiofrequency catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation. JACC Clin. Electrophysiol. 2018, 4, 1583–1594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Nakagawa, H.; Kautzner, J.; Natale, A.; Peichl, P.; Cihak, R.; Wichterle, D.; Ikeda, A.; Santangeli, P.; Di Biase, L.; Jackman, W.M. Locations of high contact force during left atrial mapping in atrial fibrillation patients. Circ. Arrhythmia Electrophysiol. 2013, 6, 746–753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Jpm 12 00298 g001 550
Figure 1. Flowchart of the study selection process. AF = atrial fibrillation.
Figure 1. Flowchart of the study selection process. AF = atrial fibrillation.
Jpm 12 00298 g001
Jpm 12 00298 g002 550
Figure 2. Forest plot of (A) freedom from atrial tachyarrhythmias; (B) freedom from atrial fibrillation; and (C) acute pulmonary vein isolation. 2G-CB = second-generation cryoballoon; CF-RF = contact force-sensing radiofrequency; CI =confidence interval; M–H = Mantel–Haenszel.
Figure 2. Forest plot of (A) freedom from atrial tachyarrhythmias; (B) freedom from atrial fibrillation; and (C) acute pulmonary vein isolation. 2G-CB = second-generation cryoballoon; CF-RF = contact force-sensing radiofrequency; CI =confidence interval; M–H = Mantel–Haenszel.
Jpm 12 00298 g002
Jpm 12 00298 g003 550
Figure 3. Forest plot of (A) procedure time and (B) fluoroscopy time; 2G-CB = second-generation cryoballoon; CF-RF = contact force-sensing radiofrequency; CI = confidence interval; IV = inverse variance; SD = standard deviation.
Figure 3. Forest plot of (A) procedure time and (B) fluoroscopy time; 2G-CB = second-generation cryoballoon; CF-RF = contact force-sensing radiofrequency; CI = confidence interval; IV = inverse variance; SD = standard deviation.
Jpm 12 00298 g003
Jpm 12 00298 g004 550
Figure 4. Forest plot of (A) all-procedural complications; (B) pericardial effusion/cardiac tamponade; (C) phrenic nerve paralysis; and (D) vascular complications. 2G-CB = second-generation cryoballoon ablation; CF-RF = contact force-sensing radiofrequency ablation; CI = confidence interval; M–H = Mantel–Haenszel.
Figure 4. Forest plot of (A) all-procedural complications; (B) pericardial effusion/cardiac tamponade; (C) phrenic nerve paralysis; and (D) vascular complications. 2G-CB = second-generation cryoballoon ablation; CF-RF = contact force-sensing radiofrequency ablation; CI = confidence interval; M–H = Mantel–Haenszel.
Jpm 12 00298 g004
Table
Table 1. Baseline characteristics of the involved studies.
Table 1. Baseline characteristics of the involved studies.
AuthorStudy DesignMapping
System		CBA StrategyRFA StrategyBlanking
Period		Follow-Up
Period		AADs Treatment during Follow-Up PeriodArrhythmia Detection
Methods
Giannopoulos et al., 2019 [42]RCT–MCCARTO 328 mm 2G-CB
240 → 180 s/vein		CF-RF2 months6 monthsNo12-lead ECG
24 h Holter monitor
Gunawardene et al., 2018 [43]RCT–SCCARTO 328 mm 2G-CB
1 × 240 s/vein		CF-RF
FR 17–30 mL/min
Power ≤ 30 W
Duration 30–60 s
Temperature ≤ 45 °C
CF ≥ 10 g		3 months10.3 ± 2.1
months		No12-lead ECG
24 h Holter monitor
Hassan et al., 2020 [44]Cohort–SCCARTO 328 mm 2G-CB
2 × 240 s/vein		CF-RF
FR 17–20 mL/min
Power 30–35 W
Duration 20–40 s
FTI > 400 gs		3 months12 monthsNo12-lead ECG
24 h Holter monitor
Hisazaki et al., 2019 [45]Cohort–SCCARTO 328 mm 2G-CB
2 × 180 s/vein		CF-RF
Power ≤ 35 W
CF ≥ 10 g		3 months20 ± 6 monthsNo/Yes12-lead ECG
24 h Holter monitor
Jourda et al., 2015 [46]Cohort–SCCARTO 328 mm 2G-CB
2 × 240 s/vein		CF-RF
FR 17–20 mL/min
Power ≤ 30 W
Temperature ≤ 48 °C		3 months12 monthsNo12-lead ECG
24 h Holter monitor
Kardos et al., 2016 [47]Cohort–SCCARTO 328 mm 2G-CB
≥1 × 240 s/vein		CF-RF
Power ≤ 35 W
Duration 20–40 s
Temperature ≤ 48 °C		3 months24 monthsNo12-lead ECG
24 h Holter monitor
Matta et al., 2018 [48]Cohort–MCCARTO 328 mm 2G-CB
180 → 240 s/vein		CF-RF
CF 5–15 g		3 months12 ± 5 monthsNo/Yes12-lead ECG
24 to 48 h Holter monitor
Squara et al., 2015 [49]Cohort–MCCARTO 3
EnSite		23 or 28 mm 2G-CB
2 × 240 s/vein		CF-RF
Power 30–35 W
Duration 20–40
FTI > 400 gs		1 months12 (10–18)
months		No12-lead ECG
24 h Holter monitor
Tanaka et al., 2019 [50]Cohort–SCCARTO 3
EnSite		28 mm 2G-CB
2 × 180 s/vein		CF-RF
Duration ≥ 20 s
CF ≥ 5 g
FTI ≥ 150 gs		3 months2.98 years
(median)		No12-lead ECG
Holter monitor
External loop recorder
Watanabe et al., 2018 [51]RCT–SCCARTO 328 mm 2G-CB
2 × 180 s/vein		CF-RF
FR 17 mL/min
Power ≤ 30 W
CF ≥ 10 g		NA12 monthsNo/Yes12-lead ECG
24 to 48 h Holter monitor
Xiao et al., 2020 [52]Cohort–MCCARTO 328 mm 2G-CB
1 × ≥ 180 s/vein		CF-RF
FR 17–25 mL/min
Power 25 to 35 W
Temperature ≤ 43 °C
CF 10–30 g		3 months12 monthsNo12-lead ECG
24 h Holter monitor
7 d Holter monitor
Yokokawa et al., 2017 [53]Cohort–SCCARTO 3
EnSite		28 mm 2G-CB
1 × 180 or 240 s/vein		CF-RF
FR 30 mL/min
Power ≤ 35 W
Temperature ≤ 48 °C		3 months25 ± 5 monthsNoAuto-triggered event monitor
AADs = antiarrhythmic drugs; 2G-CB = second-generation cryoballoon ablation; CBA = cryoballoon ablation; CF = contact force; CF-RF = contact force-sensing radiofrequency ablation; ECG = electrocardiogram; FR = flow rate; FTI = force-time integral; MCs = multicenter; NA = not available; RCT = randomized controlled trial; SC = single center.
Table
Table 2. Baseline characteristics of the patients from the involved studies.
Table 2. Baseline characteristics of the patients from the involved studies.
AuthorGroupPatientsAge, YearsMaleHypertensionCADHeart FailureSleep
Apnea		DMStroke
or TIA		LVEF, %LAVI, mL/m2LAD, mm
Giannopoulos, 2019 [42]2G-CB8061.0 ± 2.5NA41 (51.3)6 (7.5)2 (2.5)NA9 (11.3)NA59.9 ± 2.3NA41.4 ± 4.3
CF-RF4058.3 ± 3.0NA18 (45.0)2 (5.0)2 (5.0)NA6 (15.0)NA60.0 ± 2.3NA39.9 ± 1.4
Gunawardene, 2018 [43]2G-CB3062.0 ± 9.518 (60.0)16 (53.0)NANANANANA59.8 ± 4.5NANA
CF-RF3057.4 ± 10.524 (80.0)17 (56.0)NANANANANA59.2 ± 5.0NANA
Hassan et al., 2020 [44]2G-CB2547.9 ± 11.615 (60.0)6 (24.0)2 (8.0)1 (4.0)NA7 (28.0)NA61.2 ± 5.7NA41.0 ± 3.8
CF-RF2545.9 ± 12.417 (68.0)5 (20.0)1 (4.0)2(8.0)NA5 (20.0)NA62.1 ± 7.8NA40.9 ± 5.7
Hisazaki et al., 2019 [45]2G-CB6464.0 ± 12.040 (63.0)32 (50.0)NANANANANA68.0 ± 8.0NA35.0 ± 5.0
CF-RF2267.0 ± 12.015 (68.0)10 (45.0)NANANANANA67.0 ± 8.0NA36.0 ± 5.0
Jourda, et al., 2015 [46]2G-CB7559.9 ± 10.620 (26.7)26 (34.7)NA5 (6.7)9 (12.0)6 (8.0)3 (4.0)64.4 ± 7.442.8 ± 15.2NA
CF-RF7562.5 ± 8.918 (24.0)36 (48.0)NA2 (2.7)4 (5.3)3 (4.0)8 (10.7)65.5 ± 5.639.5 ± 11.3NA
Kardos, et al., 2016 [47]2G-CB4059.0 ± 10.027 (67.5)17 (42.5)5 (12.5)NANA2 (5.0)NANANA41.3 ± 4.0
CF-RF5861.0 ± 9.038 (66.0)30 (51.0)7 (12.0)NANA3 (5.1)NANANA42.1 ± 4.6
Matta, et al., 2018 [48]2G-CB4659.0 ± 9.036 (78.0)21 (46.0)3 (7.0)1 (2.0)2 (4.0)3 (7.0)0 (0.0)61.0 ± 5.0NANA
CF-RF4659.0 ± 9.038 (82.0)21 (46.0)3 (7.0)2 (4.0)3 (7.0)3 (7.0)1 (2.0)61.0 ± 6.0NANA
Squara, et al., 2015 [49]2G-CB17858.4 ± 11.5128 (71.9)55 (30.1)NANANA14 (7.9)NA56.6 ± 7.7NANA
CF-RF19861.0 ± 9.0153 (77.3)74 (37.4)NANANA13 (6.6)NA55.8 ± 9.2NANA
Tanaka, et al.,
2019 [50]		2G-CB7064.1 ± 10.152 (74.0)40 (57.0)NA1 (1.0)NA7 (10.0)9 (13.0)68.0 ± 9.1NA37.1 ± 5.7
CF-RF6163.4 ± 10.542 (69.0)38 (62.0)NA2 (3.0)NA8 (13.0)4 (7.0)67.1 ± 6.6NA36.9 ± 4.7
Watanabe, et al., 2018 [41]2G-CB2562.0 ± 12.017 (68.0)16 (64.0)NA2 (8.0)NA3 (12.0)1 (4.0)63.0 ± 5.0NA39.0 ± 6.0
CF-RF2568.0 ± 9.019 (76.0)14 (56.0)NA2 (8.0)NA5 (20.0)2 (8.0)58.0 ± 8.0NA42.0 ± 5.0
Xiao, et al., 2020 [52]2G-CB3064.5 ± 12.117 (56.7)NA7 (23.3)NANANANA63.1 ± 9.6NA41.9 ± 5.2
CF-RF3064.1 ± 8.319 (63.3)NA5 (16.7)NANANANA66.4 ± 7.9NA40.8 ± 4.9
Yokokawa et al., 2017 [53]2G-CB7163.0 ± 10.053 (75.0)40 (56.0)10 (14.0)NANANANA59.0 ± 6.0NA42.5 ± 6.0
CF-RF7562.0 ± 9.042 (56.0)47 (63.0)5 (6.0)NANANANA60.0 ± 5.0NA42.5 ± 6.0
Overall 141960.8 ± 1.165.345.69.94.07.49.16.662.0 ± 1.340.7 ± 2.140.0 ± 1.1
2G-CB = second-generation cryoballoon ablation; CAD = coronary artery disease; CF-RF = contact force-sensing radiofrequency ablation; DM = diabetes mellitus; NA = not available; LA = left atrium; LAD = left atrial diameter; LAVI = left atrial volume index; LVEF = left ventricular ejection fraction; TIA = transient ischemic attack.
Table
Table 3. Summary of the primary outcome and secondary outcomes.
Table 3. Summary of the primary outcome and secondary outcomes.
ParametersNumber of Studies2G-CBCF-RFModelOR95% CIp-Value of HeterogeneityI2 (%)p-Value of Begg’s Testp-Value of Egger’s Testp
Event, n (%)Total, nEvent, n (%)Total, n
Primary outcomes
Freedom from ATAs12579 (78.9)734548 (80.0)685Random0.890.68 to 1.170.6800.730.890.41
Secondary outcomes
Freedom from AF8332 (79.8)416270 (79.9)338Random0.930.65 to 1.350.9500.710.630.72
Acute PVI122916 (99.5)29312722 (99.5)2737Random1.170.54 to 2.530.4300.810.080.70
All-procedural complications938 (6.3)59929 (4.9)590Random1.280.75 to 2.180.6501.000.570.36
Pericardial effusion/cardiac tamponade50 (0.0)3607 (1.7)402Random0.290.07 to 1.191.0000.810.060.09
Phrenic nerve paralysis722 (4.6)4780 (0.0)469Random5.741.80 to 18.310.8800.130.07<0.01
Vascular complications511 (2.8)40015 (3.5)424Random0.780.34 to 1.800.6900.810.790.57
AF = atrial fibrillation; ATAs = atrial tachyarrhythmia; 2G-CB = second-generation cryoballoon ablation; CI = confidence interval; CF-RF = contact force-sensing radiofrequency ablation; I2 = inconsistency index; OR = odds ratio, PVI = pulmonary vein isolation.
Table
Table 4. Summary of the procedural time and fluoroscopy time.
Table 4. Summary of the procedural time and fluoroscopy time.
ParametersNumber of Studies2G-CB, nCF-RF, nModelMD, Minutes95% CI, Minutesp-Value of HeterogeneityI2 (%)p-Value of Begg’s Testp-Value of Egger’s Testp
Procedure time11709660Random−18.78−27.72 to −9.85<0.01900.440.89<0.01
Fluoroscopy time11709660Random2.66−0.52 to 5.83<0.01950.440.190.10
2G-CB = second-generation cryoballoon ablation; CI = confidence interval; CF-RF = contact force-sensing radiofrequency ablation; I2 = inconsistency index; MD = mean difference.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Waranugraha, Y.; Rizal, A.; Yuniadi, Y. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Direct Comparison of Second-Generation Cryoballoon Ablation and Contact Force-Sensing Radiofrequency Ablation in Patients with Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation. J. Pers. Med. 2022, 12, 298. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm12020298

AMA Style

Waranugraha Y, Rizal A, Yuniadi Y. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Direct Comparison of Second-Generation Cryoballoon Ablation and Contact Force-Sensing Radiofrequency Ablation in Patients with Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation. Journal of Personalized Medicine. 2022; 12(2):298. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm12020298

Chicago/Turabian Style

Waranugraha, Yoga, Ardian Rizal, and Yoga Yuniadi. 2022. "A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Direct Comparison of Second-Generation Cryoballoon Ablation and Contact Force-Sensing Radiofrequency Ablation in Patients with Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation" Journal of Personalized Medicine 12, no. 2: 298. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm12020298

APA Style

Waranugraha, Y., Rizal, A., & Yuniadi, Y. (2022). A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Direct Comparison of Second-Generation Cryoballoon Ablation and Contact Force-Sensing Radiofrequency Ablation in Patients with Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation. Journal of Personalized Medicine, 12(2), 298. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm12020298

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop