Comparison of safety and efficacy between POLARx and Arctic Front cryoballoon ablation

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: None. Introduction Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) remains the cornerstone of atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation. The POLARx cryoballoon, which maintains a constant balloon pressure during ablation, was recently introduced for the treatment of AF. We present a comparison of acute and follow-up efficacy and safety outcomes between POLARx and Arctic Front, a frequently used second-generation used cryoballoon. Methods 251 consecutive patients who underwent first-time cryoballoon AF ablation with POLARx (n=118) or Arctic Front (n=133) with a follow-up of at least 6 months, were retrospectively included. Results Of the total 251 patients who were included, mean age was 63 ± 9 years and 161 (64%) participants were male. The majority of the patients suffered from paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (95%). Follow-up success rates did not significantly differ between the POLARx (79%) and Artic Front (75%) groups at 6 months. Antiarrhythmic drug-use after the blanking period of 3 months was 9% for the POLARx group. Complication rates, excluding groin complications, were low in both study groups and were not significantly different (4% in POLARx vs 3% in Arctic Front). Procedure times (71 ± 23 minutes vs. 120 ± 36 minutes) and fluoroscopy times (20 ± 10 minutes vs. 33 ± 18 minutes) were both more favourable in the POLARx group. Lastly, nadir balloon temperatures were significantly lower (-57 ± 7 ºC vs -51 ± 7 ºC) for the POLARx group for all pulmonary veins (p<0.001). Conclusion Cryoballoon AF ablation with the POLARx cryoballoon results in similar success and complication rates at 6 months, in comparison with Arctic Front. Procedure and fluoroscopy times are shorter and balloon nadir temperatures are significantly lower for the POLARx cryoballoon. This can lead to optimal logistics and thus cost-effective use of lab and personnel.