• Users Online: 48
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
Year : 2017  |  Volume : 2  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 37-43

Comparing cryoballoon and radio frequency ablation for atrial fibrillation treatment: A Hospital-based follow-up study

Department of Cardiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China

Correspondence Address:
Chaofeng Sun
Department of Cardiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, No. 76, Yanta West Road, Xi'an 710061, Shaanxi
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/ts.ts_12_17

Rights and Permissions

Aim: The aim is to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of cryoballoon ablation (CBA) for atrial fibrillation (AF) treatment, and compare it with radio-frequency ablation (RFA). Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted among AF patients who received CBA or RFA from November 2014 to January 2017 at The First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University. All patients were followed up from discharge date to either occurrence of death or April 2017. Results: Totally, 154 patients were identified who met the inclusion criteria of having episodes of electrocardiogram-documented AF within 2 months before hospitalization, 13 patients were excluded due to predetermined exclusion criteria, 29 (13 in the CBA group and 16 in the RFA group) were lost to follow-up, and 133 patients (57 in the CBA group and 76 in the RFA group) completed follow-up. The primary efficacy endpoints (AF recurrence or repeat ablation) occurred in 17 patients in the CBA group and 29 patients in RFA group (1-year Kaplan–Meier event-rate estimates, 33.2% and 37.9%, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.43–1.5; P = 0.50). Long treatment success rate (no AF recurrence or repeat ablation during the follow-up) was 71.2% in CBA group and 64.6% in RFA, respectively (P = 0.47). The primary safety endpoints occurred in 10 patients in CBA group and 19 patients in the RFA group (1-year Kaplan–Meier event rate estimates, 17.3% and 21.2%, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.34–1.57; P = 0.65). Conclusion: This paper presents the results of a first-ever study in a Chinese clinical setting and shows CBA had equivalent efficacy and safety in comparison to RAF as a treatment for AF. CBA is a promising new method for AF treatment.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded186    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 1    

Recommend this journal