Acute outcome after a single cryoballoon ablation: Comparison between Arctic Front Advance and Arctic Front Advance PRO

Background The novel fourth‐generation cryoballoon (CB4) potentially allows for enhanced catheter maneuverability and more frequent capture of pulmonary vein (PV) potentials which can be used to monitor real‐time PV isolation (PVI). The aim of our study is to compare the acute procedural endpoints between the CB4 and second‐generation cryoballoon (CB2). Methods A single‐center retrospective chart review was used to examine 50 consecutive patients with drug‐refractory atrial fibrillation undergoing CB4‐based PVI. Procedural data and acute success of these patients were compared to 50 propensity‐matched controls who underwent cryoballoon ablation procedure using CB2. Results Procedures performed with the CB4 showed significant shorter fluoroscopy time (14.8 ± 5.5 vs 18.0 ± 6.5 minutes, P = .04), shorter procedure time (58.3 ± 15.7 vs 65.3 ± 21 minutes, P = .13), and shorter total ablation time (10.8 ± 1.5 vs 13.8 ± 1.9 minutes, P = .42). The real‐time PVI visualization rate was 33.3% in the CB2 group and 74.7% in the CB4 group (P