# Clinical comparison of cryoballoon ablation and radiofrequency ablation in the treatment of persistent atrial fibrillation

## TL;DR

This study compares cryoballoon and radiofrequency ablation for treating persistent atrial fibrillation and finds both methods similarly effective and safe.

## Contribution

The study provides real-world evidence comparing two ablation techniques for persistent atrial fibrillation in a clinical setting.

## Key findings

- Cryoballoon ablation and radiofrequency ablation had similar recurrence rates after one year.
- Complication rates were comparable between the two ablation methods.
- Both techniques showed similar effectiveness and safety in treating persistent atrial fibrillation.

## Abstract

To analyze and compare the efficacy and safety of cryoballoon catheter ablation (CBA) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in the first treatment of patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (PerAF).

116 patients with PerAF who underwent the first-time catheter ablation were enrolled retrospectively, including 56 patients in CBA group and 60 patients in RFA group. The primary endpoint was symptomatic onset after 3 months of ablation or occurrence of atrial arrhythmia (ATA) with any documented duration more than 30 s. The secondary endpoints were perioperative complications and re-ablation 3 month after procedure.

No remarkable difference existed between CBA group and RFA group in the recurrence rate one year after operation (CBA 16.1% vs. RFA 23.3%, P = 0.360). Additionally, the complication rates were similar between the two groups (CBA 25.0% vs. RFA 35.0%, P = 0.312).

In this real-world study, the effectiveness and overall safety of CBA and RFA in the treatment of PerAF were comparable.