Document resource
Background Cryoballoon (CB) ablation is a well-established treatment for atrial fibrillation (AF). The Arctic Front Advance Pro™ (AFA-Pro) system, in use for over a decade, has demonstrated consistent efficacy and safety. Recently, the POLARx™, a novel CB system, has gained attention due to its advanced design and comparable clinical outcomes.Methods We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing AFA-Pro and POLARx in patients undergoing CB ablation for AF. Outcomes included procedural parameters (procedure time, ablation time, fluoroscopy time, balloon nadir temperature) and safety endpoints such as phrenic nerve palsy (PNP) and overall complication rates.Results There were no significant differences between POLARx and AFA in acute PVI success (OR = 0.49, P = 0.24), procedure time (MD = 4.38, P = 0.09), ablation time (SMD = 0.12, P = 0.10), fluoroscopy time (MD = 0.82, P = 0.34), and stroke rates (OR = 3.34, P = 0.14). Polar X showed a significant advantage in balloon nadir times (P < 0.00001) but was associated with a higher risk of phrenic nerve palsy (OR = 1.66, P = 0.05). Freezing time and Time To Isolation (TTI) showed no clear differences.Conclusion POLARx and AFA cryoablation systems both exhibit comparable efficacy in terms of acute PVI success, procedure time, ablation time, fluoroscopy time, and TTI. POLARx demonstrates superior balloon nadir times but is associated with a higher risk of phrenic nerve palsy. These findings provide important insights into the procedural efficiency and safety profiles of these cryoablation systems.