Table 4

Comparison between paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF) subjects undergoing cryoablation and conventional radiofrequency ablation

Paroxysmal AF subjects undergoingCryoablation (n=90)Conventional radiofrequency ablation (n=53)p
Follow-up (months)14.9±7.715.6±7.4NS
Additional cavotricuspid ablation17 (19%)6 (11%)
Procedural time (min)108±28208±58<0.001
Fluoroscopic time (min)27±962±36<0.001
ComplicationsOne pericardial effusion, two transient phrenic nerve palsiesTwo pericardial effusion unrelated to transeptal puncture requiring drainage