Contact-force guided radiofrequency vs. second-generation balloon cryotherapy for pulmonary vein isolation in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation-a prospective evaluation

Aims In the setting of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF), there areno available data comparing the mid-term outcome of patients undergoing pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) catheter ablation using contact-force (CF)-guided radiofrequency (RF) vs. second-generation balloon cryotherapy. Methods and results Prospective single-centre evaluation, carried out from March 2011 to February 2013, comparing CF radiofrequency (Thermocool (R) SmartTouch (TM), Biosense Webster, Inc.) (CF group) with cryoballoon ablation (Arctic Front Advance (TM) 28 mm cryoballoon, Medtronic, Inc.) (CB group), in regards to procedural safety and efficacy, as well as recurrence at 12 months. Overall, 150 consecutive patients were enrolled (75 in each group). The characteristics of patients of both the groups were similar (61.2 +/- 9.9 years, women 25.3%, mean AF duration 4.1 +/- 4.0 years, mean CHA(2)DS(2)-VASc score 1.4 +/- 1.3, mean HAS-BLED 1.4 +/- 0.6). Duration of the procedure was significantly lower in the CF group (110.7 +/- 32.5 vs. 134.5 +/- 48.3 min, P = 0.001), with a lower duration of fluoroscopy (21.5 +/- 8.5 vs. 25.3 +/- 9.9 min, P = 0.017) and X-ray exposure (4748 +/- 2411 cGy cm(2) vs. 7734 +/- 5361 cGy cm(2), P = 0.001). In contrast, no significant difference was found regarding significant procedural complication (2.7 vs. 1.3% in CF and CB groups, respectively; P = 0.56), and PVI was eventually achieved in all cases. At 12 months, AF recurrence occurred in 11 patients (14.7%) in the CB group and in 9 patients (12.0%) in the CF group (HR = 1.20 95% CI 0.50-2.90; log rank P = 0.682). Conclusions Our preliminary findings suggest that CF-guided radiofrequency and cryotherapy present very similar performances in the setting of paroxysmal AF catheter ablation.