Premium
Sex‐specific efficacy and safety of cryoballoon versus radiofrequency ablation for atrial fibrillation: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Author(s) -
du Fay de Lavallaz Jeanne,
Clerc Olivier,
Pudenz Christiane,
Illigens Ben,
Kühne Michael
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.193
H-Index - 138
eISSN - 1540-8167
pISSN - 1045-3873
DOI - 10.1111/jce.14071
Subject(s) - medicine , atrial fibrillation , pulmonary vein , meta analysis , ablation , observational study , randomized controlled trial , catheter ablation , radiofrequency ablation , cardiology
Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a growing healthcare burden, for which pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) using cryoballoon (CB) or radiofrequency (RF) represent attractive therapies. Women are at higher risk of recurrence after AF ablation and present a specific complications profile. Therefore, a systematic catheter‐specific assessment of pulmonary vein isolation is urgently needed in women. Objective: Systematically assessing the sex‐specific efficacy/safety of CB vs RF ablation. Methods: We performed a structured database search of the scientific literature for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational prospective studies (OPS) comparing CB and RF ablation efficacy at 1 year. We investigated the reporting of sex‐specific analyses and assessed the comparative sex‐specific efficacy, safety and procedural characteristics of CB vs RF using random‐effect meta‐regression accounting for the proportion of enrolled women. Results: Twenty‐three studies were included (18 OPS and 5 RCTs) for a total of 13 509 patients. Sex‐specific outcomes by ablation device were reported in two and sex‐specific regression in four studies, none of which took the ablation device into account. Meta‐regression accounting for the proportion of enrolled women showed no significant difference in outcomes between RF or CB. Conclusion: The sex‐specific reporting in trials comparing CB to RF is extremely low. A quantitative meta‐regression using the percentage of enrolled women as sex‐specific indicator did not show any difference between CB and RF but acknowledging the low percentage of enrolled women and the lack of sex‐specific data, further research including patient‐level data is urgently needed to draw more definitive conclusions.