Comparative efficacy and safety of catheter ablation interventions for atrial fibrillation: comprehensive network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

PURPOSE

Point-by-point radiofrequency (RF) ablation has been the cornerstone of pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF); however, it remains a complex and time-consuming procedure. Many novel AF catheter ablation (CA) techniques have been introduced, but whether they represent valuable alternatives remains controversial. Thus, we conducted a network meta-analysis to comprehensively evaluate the efficacy and safety of different CA interventions.

METHODS

We systematically searched several databases (Embase, PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov ) from inception to March, 2020. The primary outcomes of interest were freedom from atrial tachyarrhythmia (AT) and procedure-related complications; secondary outcomes included procedure time and fluoroscopy time.

RESULTS

Finally, 33 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with a total of 4801 patients were enrolled. No significant differences were found among the different interventions in terms of primary efficacy or safety outcomes. PVAC was most likely to have the shortest procedure time (Prbest = 61.5%) and nMARQ the shortest fluoroscopy time (Prbest = 60.6%); compared with conventional irrigated RF (IRF) ablation, cryoballoon ablation (CBA) showed comparable clinical efficacy and safety; CBA with second-generation CB (CB2) had a significantly shorter procedure time than IRF with contact force technology (CF-IRF) (WMD = - 20.75; p = 0.00).

CONCLUSION

There is insufficient evidence to suggest that one CA technique is superior to another. However, PVAC may be associated with a shorter procedural duration, and the CB2 catheters also seemed to reduce the procedure time compared with that of CF-IRF. Further large-scale studies are warranted to compare the available CA techniques and provide an up-to-date optimum recommendation.