Cryoballoon vs radiofrequency ablation of atrial fibrillation: insights from the Veterans Healthcare System

Purpose Catheter ablation is considered the mainstay treatment for drug-refractory atrial fibrillation (AF). The aims of our study were to compare the efficacy and safety of the most two currently approved approaches (point-by-point radiofrequency ablation (RFA), either with contact force (CF) or without contact force (nCF) catheters, and cryoballoon ablation (CBA)) in the Veterans Healthcare System. Methods We performed a retrospective study of patients who underwent ablation for treatment of AF at the veterans affairs healthcare system between 2013 and 2018. Only the first reported ablation procedure was included. Results We included 956 patients in the study (97.4% males, 91.5% Caucasians, 67% paroxysmal AF), with 682 patients in RFA-nCF, 139 in RFA-CF, and 135 in CBA. Thirty-day complication rates were comparable between the three groups with the exception of higher incidence of phrenic nerve injury in CBA group when compared to RFA-nCF (2.2% vs 0.0%, p < 0.01). Long-term recurrence rate of AF was significantly lower in the CBA group when compared to RFA-nCF (33.3% vs 47.7%, adjusted HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.44–0.83, p < 0.01). On the other hand, it was similar between RFA-CF and RFA-nCF groups (43.9% vs 47.7%, adjusted HR 1.01, 95% CI 0.76–1.33, p 0.97). After stratifying patients based on AF type, these findings were only present in patients with paroxysmal AF. Conclusion CBA for paroxysmal AF, in male dominant patients’ population, was associated with lower incidence of AF recurrence rate while having a comparable safety profile to RFA independent of the use of CF catheters.