Comparison of Cryoballoon and Contact Force-Sensing Radiofrequency Ablation for Persistent Atrial Fibrillation in Clinical Practice.

Background Outcomes of cryoballoon ablation for persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) are unclear, especially in Japanese patients, so the effectiveness and safety of cryoballoon ablation in clinical practice were retrospectively compared with those of contact force-sensing radiofrequency (CFRF) ablation including the high-power protocol.Methods and Results:Consecutive patients with persistent AF were reviewed, and 253 and 265 patients who underwent cryoballoon and CFRF ablation, respectively, were enrolled. The primary endpoint was atrial arrhythmia recurrence. The secondary endpoints were periprocedural complications and repeat ablation. The rate of additional left atrial (LA) ablation after pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) was similar between groups (68.8% cryoballoon vs. 74.0% CFRF, P=0.19). Freedom from atrial arrhythmia recurrence was comparable between groups over a follow-up of 25.5±12.5 months (72.3% cryoballoon vs. 69.8% CFRF; adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59-1.21, P=0.36). Outcomes were similar in the subgroups of PVI alone and PVI plus additional LA ablation. LA posterior wall isolation, absence of defragmentation, and low creatine clearance, but not catheter selection, were associated with the primary endpoint. Periprocedural complications (adjusted HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.34-1.54, P=0.41) and repeat ablation (adjusted HR 1.11, 95% CI 0.71-1.74, P=0.64) were similar for both procedures. Conclusions Cryoballoon ablation for persistent AF in Japanese clinical practice had acceptable outcomes comparable to those of advanced CFRF ablation.