Document Detail

Is cryoballoon ablation preferable to radiofrequency ablation for treatment of atrial fibrillation by pulmonary vein isolation? A meta-analysis.
Jump to Full Text
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  24587324     Owner:  NLM     Status:  In-Data-Review    
Abstract/OtherAbstract:
OBJECTIVE: Currently radiofrequency and cryoballoon ablations are the two standard ablation systems used for catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation; however, there is no universal consensus on which ablation is the optimal choice. We therefore sought to undertake a meta-analysis with special emphases on comparing the efficacy and safety between cryoballoon and radiofrequency ablations by synthesizing published clinical trials.
METHODS AND RESULTS: Articles were identified by searching the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases before September 2013, by reviewing the bibliographies of eligible reports, and by consulting with experts in this field. Data were extracted independently and in duplicate. There were respectively 469 and 635 patients referred for cryoballoon and radiofrequency ablations from 14 qualified clinical trials. Overall analyses indicated that cryoballoon ablation significantly reduced fluoroscopic time and total procedure time by a weighted mean of 14.13 (95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 2.82 to 25.45; P = 0.014) minutes and 29.65 (95% CI: 8.54 to 50.77; P = 0.006) minutes compared with radiofrequency ablation, respectively, whereas ablation time in cryoballoon ablation was nonsignificantly elongated by a weighted mean of 11.66 (95% CI: -10.71 to 34.04; P = 0.307) minutes. Patients referred for cryoballoon ablation had a high yet nonsignificant success rate of catheter ablation compared with cryoballoon ablation (odds ratio; 95% CI; P: 1.34; 0.53 to 3.36; 0.538), and cryoballoon ablation was also found to be associated with the relatively low risk of having recurrent atrial fibrillation (0.75; 0.3 to 1.88; 0.538) and major complications (0.46; 0.11 to 1.83; 0.269). There was strong evidence of heterogeneity and low probability of publication bias.
CONCLUSION: Our findings demonstrate greater improvement in fluoroscopic time and total procedure duration for atrial fibrillation patients referred for cryoballoon ablation than those for radiofrequency ablation.
Authors:
Junxia Xu; Yingqun Huang; Hongbin Cai; Yue Qi; Nan Jia; Weifeng Shen; Jinxiu Lin; Feng Peng; Wenquan Niu
Related Documents :
10776714 - Toward a rational management of concomitant carotid and coronary artery disease.
18290844 - Steroid-induced improvement of neurological signs in ataxia-telangiectasia patients.
17478164 - Outcomes after transcatheter closure of patent foramen ovale in patients with paradoxic...
24729814 - The influence of laparoscopic vs. open gastric bypass on hemodynamic function in morbid...
10643524 - Indications for penile revascularization and long-term results.
2821464 - Treatment of cytomegalovirus retinopathy with ganciclovir.
Publication Detail:
Type:  Journal Article     Date:  2014-02-28
Journal Detail:
Title:  PloS one     Volume:  9     ISSN:  1932-6203     ISO Abbreviation:  PLoS ONE     Publication Date:  2014  
Date Detail:
Created Date:  2014-03-03     Completed Date:  -     Revised Date:  -    
Medline Journal Info:
Nlm Unique ID:  101285081     Medline TA:  PLoS One     Country:  United States    
Other Details:
Languages:  eng     Pagination:  e90323     Citation Subset:  IM    
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms
Descriptor/Qualifier:

From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine

Full Text
Journal Information
Journal ID (nlm-ta): PLoS One
Journal ID (iso-abbrev): PLoS ONE
Journal ID (publisher-id): plos
Journal ID (pmc): plosone
ISSN: 1932-6203
Publisher: Public Library of Science, San Francisco, USA
Article Information
Download PDF
Copyright: 2014 Xu et al
License:
Received Day: 14 Month: 10 Year: 2013
Accepted Day: 29 Month: 1 Year: 2014
collection publication date: Year: 2014
Electronic publication date: Day: 28 Month: 2 Year: 2014
Volume: 9 Issue: 2
E-location ID: e90323
PubMed Id: 24587324
ID: 3938670
Publisher Id: PONE-D-13-42037
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0090323

Is Cryoballoon Ablation Preferable to Radiofrequency Ablation for Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation by Pulmonary Vein Isolation? A Meta-Analysis Alternate Title:Cryoballoon vs. Radiofrequency Ablation for PVI
Junxia Xu12*
Yingqun Huang3
Hongbin Cai3
Yue Qi4
Nan Jia5
Weifeng Shen6
Jinxiu Lin3
Feng Peng3*
Wenquan Niu789*
Thomas Bergeredit1 Role: Editor
1Department of Geratology, Fuzhou General Hospital of Nanjing Command, PLA, Fuzhou, Fujian, China
2Department of Geratology, Fozhou General Hospital, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, Fujian, China
3Department of Cardiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, Fujian, China
4Department of Epidemiology, Capital Medical University Affiliated Beijing An Zhen Hospital, Beijing Institute of Heart, Lung and Blood Vessel Diseases, Beijing, China
5Department of Cardiology, The Fourth People’s Hospital of Shenzhen, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China
6Department of Cardiology, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
7Department of Human Genetics and Biostatistics, Institute of Cardiovascular Disease, Dalian Medical University, Dalian, Liaoning, China
8Center for Evidence-Based Medicine, Institute of Cardiovascular Disease, Dalian Medical University, Dalian, Liaoning, China
9State Key Laboratory of Medical Genomics, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
Medical University Innsbruck, Austria
Correspondence: * E-mail: fengpengfuzhou@yeah.net (FP); xujunxia1970@aliyun.com (JX); niuwenquan_shcn@163.com (WN)
[conflict] Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Contributed by footnote: Conceived and designed the experiments: WN FP. Performed the experiments: JX YH YQ. Analyzed the data: WN FP. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: HC NJ WS JL. Wrote the paper: WN FP.

Introduction

Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) via catheter ablation has become the recommended choice of treatment for patients with drug-refractory paroxysmal or persistent atrial fibrillation [1]. Conventionally radiofrequency is the preferred source of energy for ablation procedures, whereas its application has been limited by disrupting tissues due to excess heating or generation of inhomogeneous lesions [2], [3]. An alternative energy source, cryothermal energy, has recently been developed to overcome this limitation [4]. The cryoballoon catheter is composed of an inner and an outer balloon, and liquid nitrous oxide is delivered into the inner lumen of the balloon and changed into gas, thereby cooling the surrounding tissues to interrupt cellular metabolism and electrical activity. However, the potential benefits of cryoballoon ablation over radiofrequency ablation at present are still subject to an ongoing debate. For example, Linhart et al reported a similar success rate between cryoballoon and radiofrequency ablations [5], whereas the success rate for cryoballoon ablation was obviously high in a clinical trial by Kojodjojo et al [6]. It is worth noting that the majority of published trials on this topic are seriously underpowered, and most are even nonrandomized clinical trials. Given the accumulation of data, we therefore sought to undertake a meta-analysis of clinical trials that compared cryoballoon ablation with radiofrequency ablation in terms of the efficacy and safety for electrical isolation of pulmonary veins.


Methods

This meta-analysis of clinical trials was carried out in accordance with the guidelines set forth by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement (Supplementary Checklist S1) [7].

Search strategy

Articles were identified by searching MEDLINE and EMBASE electronic databases from the earliest possible year to September 2013, by reviewing the bibliographies of original eligible reports, and by consulting with experts in this field. The key terms included ‘pulmonary vein’, ‘ablation’, ‘radiofrequency’, ‘cryothermal’, or ‘cryoballoon’, together with ‘atrial fibrillation’ or ‘arrhythmias’. Searching results were restricted to ‘clinical trials’ published in ‘English’ language.

Trial selection

The titles and abstracts of 140 potentially relevant articles were evaluated independently by two investigators (F.P. and W.N.) and the full texts of 54 articles were obtained for further evaluation in duplicate. To avoid double counting of study patients, the corresponding authors were contacted for inquiries if necessary. For trials that produced more than one publication using the same study, data from the most recent or most complete publication were extracted.

Inclusion/exclusion criteria

For inclusion, eligible trials should fulfill the following criteria (all must be satisfied): (1) to involve patients refractory to antiarrhythmic drugs and then referred for PVI by catheter ablation; (2) under treatment of either radiofrequency (including irrigated radiofrequency) or cryoballoon ablation for the first time; (3) to compare either of fluoroscopic time, total procedure time, ablation time, success rate of PVI, and the percentages of recurrent atrial fibrillation and major complications between cryoballoon or radiofrequency ablations. Trials were excluded (one was sufficient for exclusion) if they were cross-over trials or if they were conference abstracts, case reports, case series, editorials, review articles, or non-English articles.

Data extraction

The primary outcome was the success rate of PVI, fluoroscopic time, total procedure time and ablation time. Secondary outcomes consisted of freedom from atrial fibrillation at the end of follow-up and major complications including cardiac tamponade, stroke or transient ischemic attack, pulmonary edema, phrenic nerve palsy, pulmonary vein stenosis, atrioesophageal fistula or death.

From each qualified article, two investigators (F.P. and W.N.) independently extracted the following data if available and entered them into a standard Excel template (Microsoft Corp, Redmond, WA): the first author’s surname, publication year, ethnicity, study design, the manufacturer and type of cryoballoon, radiofrequency type, matched information, sample size, fluoroscopic time, total procedure time, ablation time, success rate of PVI, recurrence of atrial fibrillation and major complications, as well as the characteristics of trial patients including age, gender, atrial fibrillation duration, left atrium diameter, previous percutaneous ablation, paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), the percentages of coronary artery disease (CAD), hypertension and diabetes between the two arms.

Paroxysmal atrial fibrillation was defined as self-terminating episodes lasting <7 days, persistent atrial fibrillation as episodes between ≥7 days, or requiring a cardioversion to terminate. A distinction between persistent and long-lasting persistent atrial fibrillation was not made. The success of PVI was defined as complete PVI, which was confirmed by the disappearance of all pulmonary vein potentials or the dissociation of pulmonary vein potentials from left atrial activity.

Hypertension was diagnosed as the presence of elevated systolic (≥140 mmHg) and/or diastolic (≥90 mmHg) blood pressure, or current use of antihypertensive medications. Diabetes was defined as fasting plasma glucose levels ≥7.0 mmol/L or non-fasting plasma glucose levels ≥11.0 mmol/L, or taking hypoglycemic drugs or receiving parenteral insulin therapy. Data were compared and disagreements regarding whether to include or exclude a trial were resolved by consensus between all authors.

Statistical analysis

Quantitative outcomes were compared by weighted mean difference (WMD) and its 95% confidence interval (95% CI) between cryoballoon and radiofrequency ablation procedures. Categorical variables were evaluated by weighted odds ratio (OR) and the corresponding 95% CI, which were calculated by the Mantel-Haenszel method. The pooled effect estimates were calculated using the inverse-variance weighting under both fixed-effects and DerSimonian & Laird [8] random-effects models.

Heterogeneity was assessed by χ2 test and quantified using the inconsistency index (I2) statistic, which ranges from 0% to 100% and is defined as the percentage of the observed between-trial variability that is due to heterogeneity rather than chance. Given that the fixed- and random-effects models produced similar results in the absence of heterogeneity, the random-effects model is thereby adopted.

Sensitivity analysis was performed to assess the contribution of each individual trial to pooled effect estimate by sequentially removing each trial in turn. Meta-regression analysis was used to evaluate the extent to which different trial-level variables explained the heterogeneity of effect estimates between cryoballoon and radiofrequency ablation procedures.

Publication bias was assessed by the Begg’s and Egger’s tests. The trim-and-fill method was adopted to estimate the number and outcomes of potentially missing trials due to publication bias. P<0.05 was considered statistically significant except for the I2, Begg’s and Egger’s statistics where a significance level was set as P<0.10 [9]. The statistical analyses described above were completed using the STATA software (StataCorp, College Station, TX, version 11.2 for Windows).


Results
Eligible trials

Baseline characteristics of all study patients and a flow diagram schematizing the process of excluding articles with specific reasons are summarized in Tables 1 and 2 and Figure 1, respectively. Of 140 potentially relevant articles identified in initial literature search, 14 qualified articles involving 1104 patients referred for catheter ablation were analyzed [5], [6], .

All clinical trials were conducted in Caucasians from European countries and published between 2009 and 2013. Eight of 14 trials adopted 28 mm cryoballoon [6], [10−13], , and five adopted mixed cryoballoon of 23 mm and 28 mm [5], [14], [15], [17], [18]. All trials adopted the irrigated radiofrequency. All but two trials with missing information [12], [21] used cryoablation catheter from the Arctic Front (Medtronic, USA). Two of 14 trials had a randomized study design [17], [21], and three trials had patients matched on age and gender between cryoballoon and radiofrequency ablations [5], [12], [19].

There were respectively 469 and 635 patients referred for cryoballoon and radiofrequency ablation procedures in PVI for the treatment of atrial fibrillation. Distributions of age, atrial fibrillation duration, LVEF, previous percutaneous ablation, CAD, hypertension and diabetes were comparable between patients referred for cryoballoon and radiofrequency ablations (P>0.05). There were more males for radiofrequency ablation (79.2%) than cryoballoon ablation (72.0%) (P = 0.0284). Left atrium diameter was slightly elevated for radiofrequency ablation (42.96% versus 41.89% for cryoballoon ablation, P = 0.0212). By contrast, there were more patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation referred for cryoballoon ablation (87.36%) than radiofrequency ablation (71.91%) (P = 0.0076).

Efficacy

Pooling the results of all qualified trials observed that cryoballoon ablation significantly reduced fluoroscopic time and total procedure time by a weighted mean of 14.13 (95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 2.82 to 25.45; P = 0.014) minutes and 29.65 (95% CI: 8.54 to 50.77; P = 0.006) minutes compared with radiofrequency ablation, respectively (Figure 2). In contrast, cryoballoon ablation had longer yet nonsignificant ablation time than radiofrequency ablation (WMD = 11.66 minutes; 95% CI: −10.71 to 34.04; P = 0.307). It is worth noting that the wide confidence intervals generated might result from the small sample sizes of clinical trials involved and the sharply divergent results of the very few trials from overall estimates.

The I2 values, which quantified heterogeneity between trails, were 95.9%, 94.7% and 97.1% for fluoroscopic time, total procedure time and ablation time, respectively, suggesting strong evidence of between-trial heterogeneity (all P<0.001). As reflected by the Begg’s and Egger’s tests (Figure 3), there were low probabilities of publication bias for all comparisons. Further adopting the trim-and-fill adjustment method yielded no material changes in pooled effects estimates, and as estimated only two missing trials were required for ablation time to make the funnel plot symmetrical (Figure 3).

Success rate

Success rate of catheter ablation was relatively higher in patients referred for cryoballoon ablation than radiofrequency ablation, the difference exhibiting no statistical significance (OR; 95% CI; P: 1.34; 0.53 to 3.36; 0.538) (Figure 4). There was evident heterogeneity (I2 = 74.8%; P = 0.003) and no publication bias (Figure S1).

Recurrence and complications

Cryoballoon ablation was also found to be associated with relatively low risk of having recurrent atrial fibrillation (0.75; 0.3 to 1.88; 0.538) and major complications (0.46; 0.11 to 1.83; 0.269) (Figure 4). As indicated by the I2 statistic, heterogeneity was significant for recurrence rate (I2 = 74.8%; P = 0.003) but not for complication rate (I2 = 11.6%; P = 0.323).

Sensitivity analysis

There was not an individual trial influencing the overall effect estimate significantly for all examined comparisons. After removing each trial and calculating the overall estimate for the remaining trials, the significance of the WMD or OR remained materially unchanged (Figure S2).

Meta-regression analysis

To explore the extent to which trial-level variables account for heterogeneity, a panel of meta-regression analyses were conducted. None of examined variables including age, gender, study design, type of cryoballoon, matched information on age and gender, atrial fibrillation duration, left atrium diameter, previous percutaneous ablation, paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, LVEF, CAD, hypertension and diabetes, contributed significantly to the variation of effect estimates between cryoballoon and radiofrequency ablation procedures (P<0.05 for all) (data not shown).


Discussion

The most noteworthy of this study was that there was greater improvement in fluoroscopic time and total procedure duration in patients referred for cryoballoon ablation than those for radiofrequency ablation in PVI of atrial fibrillation. Moreover, success rate of PVI, the percentages of recurrence of atrial fibrillation and major complications were comparable between the two procedures. To our knowledge, this is so far the first comprehensive meta-analysis comparing cryoballoon ablation with radiofrequency ablation in terms of the efficacy and safety for electrical isolation of pulmonary veins.

Currently radiofrequency and cryoballoon ablations are the two standard ablation systems used for catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation. As an alternative approach to conventional radiofrequency ablation, cryoballoon ablation has been recently developed for PVI. From a technologic viewpoint, a closer match between the cryoballoon size and the size of pulmonary vein ostium would allow for better balloon occlusion, which in turn produces more effective lesions [22]. It has been demonstrated that the catheter point-by-point cryoballoon is an effective approach to generate PVI with clinically satisfactory consequences [23]. Even more remarkably, compared with the first generation cryoballoon that was widely adopted in the majority of included trials in this meta-analysis, the second generation cryoballoon equipped with a modified refrigerant injection system has recently been introduced, and this novel balloon can provide a more homogeneous and effective cooling [24]. There is also evidence that the learning curve for cryoballoon ablation was much shorter than for radiofrequency ablation [25]. All these favorite characteristics will endow cryoballoon ablation with higher procedure efficiency and long-term success rate after cryoballoon ablation.

As reflected in our overall analyses, fluoroscopic time and total procedure duration were greatly improved by using cryoballoon ablation compared with radiofrequency ablation, consistent with the trends of most clinical trials [6], [16], [18], [20]. Contrastingly, there was longer ablation time in cryoballoon technique in this meta-analysis, likely due to the need for pre-procedural computerized tomography imaging, which can further increase the cumulative radiation dose received by the patients and overall costs. Although the success rate of catheter ablation was higher in patients referred for cryoballoon ablation than radiofrequency ablation, there was no observable statistical difference, possibly due to methodological limitations, including inadequate sample size, patient section, and lack of adjustment for confounders. Here, we cannot overlook the fact that in some clinical centers, selection of cryoballoon or radiofrequency ablation is largely based on the patient’s anatomy, that is, patients with unfavorable anatomy on computed tomography may be referred for radiofrequency ablation rather than cryoballoon ablation [22]. Moreover in clinical routine, the patients with high-risk features were more likely to have undergone the procedure with radiofrequency relative to cryoballoon ablation. Nevertheless, we believe that with the accumulation of operational experience, cryoballoon ablation’s advantage over radiofrequency ablation will become more and more obvious in clinical practice.

However, a note of caution should be added because heterogeneity might potentially limit the interpretation of our pooled effect estimates. In this meta-analysis, to account for the potential sources of heterogeneity between trials, we undertook a penal of meta-regression analyses, whereas we failed to identify any contributory confounders. The meta-regression analysis, albeit enabling both categorical and continuous variables to be considered, by itself does not have the methodological rigor of a properly designed study that is intended to test the effect of these confounders formally. On the other hand, we must recognize that our meta-regression analysis involved limited trials of insufficient sample sizes, rendering it incapable of performing subgroup analyses and detecting a small or moderate effect estimate. Our results, therefore, might underestimate the virtual changes between cryoballoon and radiofrequency ablations, and definitively there is a need for further large, randomized clinical trials to confirm or refute our findings.

Despite the clear strengths of this meta-analysis including low probabilities of publication bias and the robustness of statistical analyses, interpretation of our findings, however, should be viewed in light of several limitations. First, only two of 14 qualified trials were performed in a randomized design, raising the potential existence of potential biases and/or unmeasured confounders. Although randomized trials can minimize bias and are regarded as the gold standard for quantifying effect estimates, they may not be reflective of patients treated in general clinical practice [26]. Second, our total sample size of 1104 patients was not large enough to draw a firm conclusion, and there were more patients referred for radiofrequency ablation relative to cryoballoon ablation. Third, the left atrium size and percentage of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation were not proportional between the two ablation procedures in this meta-analysis, which might bias our findings, however, our further meta-regression analyses failed to detect their contributory influence on the effect estimates. Fourth, data on major complications were limited in this meta-analysis, and some complications such as phrenic nerve paralysis are typical complications in cryoballoon ablation but rare in radiofrequency ablation. Fifth, the fact that study patients were all Caucasians from European countries limited the generalizability of our findings, reinforcing the future validation in other ethnics. Last but not the least, as with all meta-analyses, despite a low probability of publication bias in this meta-analysis, selection bias cannot be completely excluded, since we merely identified articles from the English journals and published trials.

In conclusion, this study confirms and extends the findings of most clinical trials by demonstrating greater improvement in fluoroscopic time and total procedure duration in atrial fibrillation patients referred for cryoballoon ablation relative to those referred for radiofrequency ablation in PVI. However, it should be noted that success rate of PVI, the percentages of recurrent atrial fibrillation and major complications were comparable between the two procedures. For practical reasons, with the accumulation of data from large randomized clinical trials, successful validation of the present results will revolutionize the current clinical practice and healthcare system by bringing great benefits to doctors and patients alike in the near future.


Supporting Information Figure S1

Trim-and-fill funnel plot of the success rate of pulmonary vein isolation for cryoballoon ablation versus radiofrequency ablation.

(PDF)


Figure S2

Sensitivity analyses of fluoroscopic time (A), total procedure time (B), ablation time (C) and success rate of pulmonary vein isolation (D) for cryoballoon ablation versus radiofrequency ablation.

(PDF)


Checklist S1

The PRISMA Checklist.

(DOC)


Click here for additional data file (pone.0090323.s003.doc)


References
1. Calkins H,, Kuck KH,, Cappato R,, Brugada J,, Camm AJ,, et al. (Year: 2012) 2012 HRS/EHRA/ECAS expert consensus statement on catheter and surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation: recommendations for patient selection, procedural techniques, patient management and follow-up, definitions, endpoints, and research trial design. J Interv Card Electrophysiol33: 171–25722382715
2. Pokushalov E,, Romanov A,, Artyomenko S,, Baranova V,, Losik D,, et al. (Year: 2013) Cryoballoon versus radiofrequency for pulmonary vein re-isolation after a failed initial ablation procedure in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol24: 274–27923210695
3. Calkins H,, Kuck KH,, Cappato R,, Brugada J,, Camm AJ,, et al. (Year: 2012) 2012 HRS/EHRA/ECAS Expert Consensus Statement on Catheter and Surgical Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation: recommendations for patient selection, procedural techniques, patient management and follow-up, definitions, endpoints, and research trial design. Europace14: 528–60622389422
4. Packer DL,, Kowal RC,, Wheelan KR,, Irwin JM,, Champagne J,, et al. (Year: 2013) Cryoballoon Ablation of Pulmonary Veins for Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation: First Results of the North American Arctic Front (STOP AF) Pivotal Trial. J Am Coll Cardiol61: 1713–172323500312
5. Linhart M,, Bellmann B,, Mittmann-Braun E,, Schrickel JW,, Bitzen A,, et al. (Year: 2009) Comparison of cryoballoon and radiofrequency ablation of pulmonary veins in 40 patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: a case-control study. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol20: 1343–134819656254
6. Kojodjojo P,, O'Neill MD,, Lim PB,, Malcolm-Lawes L,, Whinnett ZI,, et al. (Year: 2010) Pulmonary venous isolation by antral ablation with a large cryoballoon for treatment of paroxysmal and persistent atrial fibrillation: medium-term outcomes and non-randomised comparison with pulmonary venous isolation by radiofrequency ablation. Heart96: 1379–138420801856
7. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med 151: 264−269, W264.
8. DerSimonian R,, Kacker R, (Year: 2007) Random-effects model for meta-analysis of clinical trials: an update. Contemp Clin Trials28: 105–11416807131
9. Bowden J,, Tierney JF,, Copas AJ,, Burdett S, (Year: 2011) Quantifying, displaying and accounting for heterogeneity in the meta-analysis of RCTs using standard and generalised Q statistics. BMC Med Res Methodol11: 4121473747
10. Sauren LD,, Y VANB,, L DER,, Pison L,, M LAM,, et al. (Year: 2009) Transcranial measurement of cerebral microembolic signals during endocardial pulmonary vein isolation: comparison of three different ablation techniques. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol20: 1102–110719549035
11. Chierchia GB,, Capulzini L,, Droogmans S,, Sorgente A,, Sarkozy A,, et al. (Year: 2010) Pericardial effusion in atrial fibrillation ablation: a comparison between cryoballoon and radiofrequency pulmonary vein isolation. Europace12: 337–34120056597
12. Kuhne M,, Suter Y,, Altmann D,, Ammann P,, Schaer B,, et al. (Year: 2010) Cryoballoon versus radiofrequency catheter ablation of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: biomarkers of myocardial injury, recurrence rates, and pulmonary vein reconnection patterns. Heart Rhythm7: 1770–177620817019
13. Sorgente A,, Chierchia GB,, Capulzini L,, Yazaki Y,, Muller-Burri A,, et al. (Year: 2010) Atrial fibrillation ablation: a single center comparison between remote magnetic navigation, cryoballoon and conventional manual pulmonary vein isolation. Indian Pacing Electrophysiol J10: 486–49521197276
14. Gaita F,, Leclercq JF,, Schumacher B,, Scaglione M,, Toso E,, et al. (Year: 2011) Incidence of silent cerebral thromboembolic lesions after atrial fibrillation ablation may change according to technology used: comparison of irrigated radiofrequency, multipolar nonirrigated catheter and cryoballoon. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol22: 961–96821453372
15. Herrera Siklody C,, Deneke T,, Hocini M,, Lehrmann H,, Shin DI,, et al. (Year: 2011) Incidence of asymptomatic intracranial embolic events after pulmonary vein isolation: comparison of different atrial fibrillation ablation technologies in a multicenter study. J Am Coll Cardiol58: 681–68821664090
16. Neumann T,, Kuniss M,, Conradi G,, Janin S,, Berkowitsch A,, et al. (Year: 2011) MEDAFI-Trial (Micro-embolization during ablation of atrial fibrillation): comparison of pulmonary vein isolation using cryoballoon technique vs. radiofrequency energy. Europace13: 37–4420829189
17. Herrera Siklody C,, Arentz T,, Minners J,, Jesel L,, Stratz C,, et al. (Year: 2012) Cellular damage, platelet activation, and inflammatory response after pulmonary vein isolation: a randomized study comparing radiofrequency ablation with cryoablation. Heart Rhythm9: 189–19621920484
18. Schmidt M,, Marschang H,, Clifford S,, Harald R,, Guido R,, et al. (Year: 2012) Trends in inflammatory biomarkers during atrial fibrillation ablation across different catheter ablation strategies. Int J Cardiol158: 33–3821276621
19. Betts TR,, Jones M,, Wong KC,, Qureshi N,, Rajappan K,, et al. (Year: 2013) Feasibility of Mitral Isthmus and Left Atrial Roof Linear Lesions Using an 8 mm Tip Cryoablation Catheter. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol24: 775–78023551613
20. Maagh P,, Butz T,, Plehn G,, Christoph A,, Meissner A, (Year: 2013) Pulmonary vein isolation in 2012: is it necessary to perform a time consuming electrophysical mapping or should we focus on rapid and safe therapies? A retrospective analysis of different ablation tools. Int J Med Sci10: 24–3323289002
21. Schmidt B, Gunawardene M, Krieg D, Bordignon S, Furnkranz A, et al. . (2013) A Prospective Randomized Single-Center Study on the Risk of Asymptomatic Cerebral Lesions Comparing Irrigated Radiofrequency Current Ablation with the Cryoballoon and the Laser Balloon. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol.
22. Knecht S,, Kuhne M,, Altmann D,, Ammann P,, Schaer B,, et al. (Year: 2013) Anatomical predictors for acute and mid-term success of cryoballoon ablation of atrial fibrillation using the 28 mm balloon. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol24: 132–13823130991
23. Tse HF,, Reek S,, Timmermans C,, Lee KL,, Geller JC,, et al. (Year: 2003) Pulmonary vein isolation using transvenous catheter cryoablation for treatment of atrial fibrillation without risk of pulmonary vein stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol42: 752–75812932615
24. Li XP,, Metzner A,, Kuck KH,, Ouyang F, (Year: 2013) Atrial fibrillation in Europe. Chin Med J (Engl)126: 2747–275223876908
25. Klein G,, Gardiwal A,, Oswald H, (Year: 2008) Catheter-based cryoablation of atrial fibrillation: state of the art. Minerva Cardioangiol56: 623–63319092737
26. Piccini JP,, Berger JS,, O'Connor CM, (Year: 2009) Amiodarone for the prevention of sudden cardiac death: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Eur Heart J30: 1245–125319336434

Figures

[Figure ID: pone-0090323-g001]
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0090323.g001.
Figure 1  Flow diagram of search strategy and study selection.

[Figure ID: pone-0090323-g002]
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0090323.g002.
Figure 2  Forest plots of changes of fluoroscopy time, total procedure time and ablation time for cryoballoon ablation versus radiofrequency ablation.

[Figure ID: pone-0090323-g003]
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0090323.g003.
Figure 3  Trim-and-fill funnel plots of fluoroscopy time, total procedure time and ablation time for cryoballoon ablation versus radiofrequency ablation.

[Figure ID: pone-0090323-g004]
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0090323.g004.
Figure 4  Forest plots of success rate, recurrence of atrial fibrillation, complication rate for cryoballoon ablation versus radiofrequency ablation.

Tables
[TableWrap ID: pone-0090323-t001] doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0090323.t001.
Table 1  Baseline characteristics of study patients of all qualified trials in this meta-analysis.
Author (year) Country Cryo type Manufacturer RF type Design Matched Number Age (yrs) Gender (Males)
Linhart M et al (2009) Germany 23 or 28 mm Arctic Front Irrigated RF Nonrandomized age, sex 20/20 59.9/58.5 0.75/0.75
Sauren LD et al (2009) Netherlands 28 mm Arctic Front Irrigated RF Nonrandomized NA 10/10 58/53 0.7/1
Chierchia GB et al (2010) Belgium 28 mm Arctic Front Irrigated RF Nonrandomized NA 46/87 56/56 0.78/0.79
Kojodjojo P et al (2010) UK 28 mm Arctic Front Irrigated RF Nonrandomized NA 90/53 57.3/59.3 0.75/0.77
Kuhne M et al (2010) Switzerland 28 mm NA Irrigated RF Nonrandomized age, sex 18/25 58/59 0.88/0.84
Sorgente A et al (2010) Belgium 28 mm Arctic Front Irrigated RF Nonrandomized NA 30/29 56/56.1 0.74/0.9
Gaita F et al (2011) Italy 23 or 28 mm Arctic Front Irrigated RF Nonrandomized NA 36/36 55/57 0.69/0.67
Herrera SC et al (2011) Germany 23 or 28 mm Arctic Front Irrigated RF Nonrandomized NA 23/27 61/61 0.65/0.74
Neumann T et al (2011) Germany NA Arctic Front Irrigated RF Nonrandomized NA 45/44 56/58 0.53/0.73
Herrera SC et al (2012) Germany 23 or 28 mm Arctic Front Irrigated RF Randomized NA 30/30 57/56 0.83/0.77
Schmidt M et al (2012) Germany 23 or 28 mm Arctic Front Irrigated RF Nonrandomized NA 37/178 60/63 0.76/0.84
Betts TR et al (2013) UK 28 mm Arctic Front Irrigated RF Nonrandomized age, sex 21/21 54/55 0.67/0.81
Maagh P et al (2013) Germany 28 mm Arctic Front Irrigated RF Nonrandomized NA 30/42 59.9/60.6 0.633/0.69
Schmidt B et al (2013) Germany 28 mm NA Irrigated RF Randomized NA 33/33 66/63 NA/NA

Abbreviations: Cryo type, type of cryoballoon; RF type, type of radiofrequency ablation; NA, not available. Digital data were expressed as counting or percentages between cryoballoon/radiofrequency techniques unless otherwise indicated.


[TableWrap ID: pone-0090323-t002] doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0090323.t002.
Table 2  Baseline characteristics of study patients of all qualified trials in this meta-analysis.
Author (year) AF-d (yrs) LA-d (mm) PAF LVEF (%) CAD Hypertens Diabetes Success rate Recurrence rate Complications
Linhart M et al (2009) 7/7 NA/NA 1/1 59.5/62.5 0.1/0 0.6/0.25 0/0.05 0.5/0.45 0.5/0.55 NA/NA
Sauren LD et al (2009) NA/NA NA/NA 1/0.9 NA/NA NA/NA NA/NA NA/NA NA/NA NA/NA NA/NA
Chierchia GB et al (2010) 3.3/3.2 41/42 NA/NA 64/64 0.086/0.05 0.24/0.23 NA/NA NA/NA NA/NA NA/NA
Kojodjojo P et al (2010) 5.6/6 39.6/41.6 1/1 65/60.3 0.06/0.06 0.47/0.26 NA/NA 0.79/0.42 0.21/0.58 NA/NA
Kuhne M et al (2010) 5/3.25 41/42 1/1 60/58 0.16/0.16 NA/NA NA/NA NA/NA NA/NA NA/NA
Sorgente A et al (2010) 2.8/3.4 40.8/42.4 0.89/0.69 63.9/64.2 0.11/0.07 0.29/0.59 0/0.03 0.66/0.66 0.34/0.35 NA/NA
Gaita F et al (2011) 5.08/6.66 41/43 NA/NA 63/64 NA/NA 0.36/0.31 NA/NA NA/NA NA/NA NA/NA
Herrera SC et al (2011) NA/NA 40/42 0.65/0.48 NA/NA NA/NA 0.61/0.59 NA/NA NA/NA NA/NA 0.96/0.93
Neumann T et al (2011) NA/NA 51/53 1/0.614 62/58 0.13/0.07 0.51/0.59 0/0.09 NA/NA NA/NA NA/NA
Herrera SC et al (2012) 4.2/5.6 41.4/40 0.7/0.567 NA/NA NA/NA 0.43/0.47 NA/NA 0.63/0.8 0.37/0.2 0.867/1
Schmidt M et al (2012) 0.83/0.92 46/46 1/0.54 60/58 0.2/0.2 0.58/0.61 0.13/0.11 NA/NA NA/NA 0.95/0.98
Betts TR et al (2013) NA/NA 42/45 0.67/0.48 NA/NA NA/NA NA/NA NA/NA NA/NA NA/NA NA/NA
Maagh P et al (2013) 1.04/0.64 38.9/37.5 0.7/0.64 NA/NA 0.13/0.17 0.2/0.095 NA/NA 0.73/0.72 0.27/0.28 NA/NA
Schmidt B et al (2013) NA/NA 40/41 NA/NA 59/58 0.21/0.18 0.76/0.7 0.06/0.06 NA/NA NA/NA 1/1

Abbreviations: AF-d, atrial fibrillation duration; LA-d, left atrium diameter; PAF, paroxysmal atrial fibrillation; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; CAD, coronary artery disease; Hypertens, hypertension; NA, not available. Digital data were expressed as counting or percentages between cryoballoon/radiofrequency techniques unless otherwise indicated.



Article Categories:
  • Research Article
Article Categories:
  • Biology
    • Biotechnology
      • Bioengineering
        • Medical devices
Article Categories:
  • Medicine
    • Anatomy and physiology
      • Cardiovascular system
        • Cardiovascular anatomy
    • Cardiovascular
      • Interventional cardiology
    • Clinical research design
      • Meta-analyses
      • Systematic reviews
    • Drugs and devices
      • Medical devices
    • Epidemiology
      • Cardiovascular disease epidemiology
    • Surgery
      • Cardiovascular surgery


Previous Document:  Poly(ADP-Ribose)Polymerase Activity Controls Plant Growth by Promoting Leaf Cell Number.
Next Document:  Intracellular Propionibacterium acnes Infection in Glandular Epithelium and Stromal Macrophages of t...