Comparison of Therapeutic Effects Between Pulsed Field Ablation and Cryoballoon Ablation in the Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Pulsed field ablation (PFA) is a novel nonthermal ablation technique for the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF) patients, with safety comparable to traditional catheter ablation surgery. The present study aims to evaluate and compare the procedural efficiency and safety profiles of PFA and cryoballoon ablation (CBA) in the management of AF. We performed a systematic search across PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase databases, encompassing the literature up to February 2024, to inform our systematic review and meta-analysis. When assessing outcome indicators, the risk ratio and its corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated for dichotomous variables. For continuous variables, the mean difference (MD) and the associated 95% CI were determined. In this scenario, a relative risk (RR) value of less than 1 and an MD value of less than 0 are deemed favorable for the PFA group. This could translate to a reduced likelihood of procedural complications or enhanced procedural performance within the PFA group. In this analysis, 9 observational studies encompassing 2875 patients with AF were included. Among these, 38% (n = 1105) were treated with PFA, while 62% (n = 1770) received CBA. The results indicated that PFA was associated with a significantly shorter procedural duration compared with CBA, with an MD of −10.49 minutes (95% CI, −15.50 to −5.49; P < 0.0001). Nevertheless, no statistically significant differences were observed when comparing the 2 treatment cohorts concerning fluoroscopy time (MD, 0.71; 95% CI, −0.45 to 1.86; P = 0.23) and the recurrence of atrial arrhythmias during follow-up (RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.78–1.14; P = 0.57). In terms of perioperative complications, the PFA group showed a significantly decreased risk of phrenic nerve palsy (RR, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.06–0.39; P < 0.0001) and an increased risk of cardiac tamponade (RR, 3.48; 95% CI, 1.26–9.66; P = 0.02) compared with the CBA group. No significant differences were noted between the PFA and CBA groups regarding the incidence of stroke/transient ischemic attack (RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.30–3.22; P = 0.99), vascular access complication (RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.36–2.10; P = 0.76), atrial esophageal fistula (RR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.01–8.13; P = 0.50), and major or minor bleeding events (RR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.09–1.74; P = 0.22). Our research results indicate that compared with CBA, PFA not only shortens the procedure time but also demonstrates noninferiority in terms of fluoroscopy duration and the recurrence rate of atrial arrhythmias. PFA and CBA have both demonstrated their respective advantages in perioperative complications.