Document Type : Original Article
Cardiac Electrophysiology Research Center, Rajaie Cardiovascular Medical, and Research Center, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, IR Iran.
Rajaie Cardiovascular Medical and Research Center, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, IR Iran.
Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common sustained cardiac arrhythmia. Rhythm control is a treatment option. Ablation is done via 2 different methods: radiofrequency (RF) ablation and cryoballoon ablation. An evaluation of the outcome of these methods in a tertiary center is necessary.
Methods: This historical cohort study recruited 299 patients undergoing ablation. RF was performed on 150 patients, while 149 underwent cryoballoon ablation. Age, sex, risk factors (diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and renal failure), symptoms (palpitations, dyspnea, bradycardia, dizziness, and chest pain), echocardiography data, and complications were extracted from documents. Baseline characteristics and outcomes were compared between the 2 groups.
Results: All baseline characteristics were comparable between the 2 groups, except age (P=0.029), renal failure (P=0.018), and the left ventricular ejection fraction (P=0.011), which were higher in the cryoballoon group. The overall complication rate was higher in the RF group (P=0.021), but the 2 groups were comparable concerning each complication. Recurrence within less than 1 month was higher in the cryoballoon group (P=0.002).
Conclusions: Both RF and cryoballoon methods have their advantages and disadvantages. A historical cohort study to compare the outcomes between these 2 methods is not the proper choice in that it fails to determine which procedure confers a better outcome. A prospective survey seems more suitable for this evaluation. (Iranian Heart Journal 2022; 23(3): 59-63)