ABSTRACT: Background: Balloon-based catheter ablations, including hot balloon ablation (HBA) and cryoballoon ablation (CBA), have rapidly emerged as alternative modalities to conventional catheter atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation owing to their impressive procedural advantages and better clinical outcomes and safety. However, the differences in characteristics, effectiveness, safety, and efficacy between HBA and CBA remain undetermined. This study compares the characteristic and prognosis differences between HBA and CBA. Methods: Electronic search was conducted in six databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, ClinicalTrial.gov, and medRxiv) with specific search strategies. Eligible studies were selected based on specific criteria; all records were identified up to June 1, 2021. The mean difference, odds ratios (ORs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to evaluate the clinical outcomes. Heterogeneity and risk of bias were assessed using predefined criteria. Results: Seven studies were included in the final meta-analysis. Compared with CBA, more patients in the HBA group had residual conduction and required a higher incidence of touch-up ablation (TUA) [OR (95% CI) = 2.76 (2.02-3.77), P = 0.000]. The most frequent sites of TUA were the left superior pulmonary veins (PVs) in the HBA group vs. the right inferior PVs in the CBA group. During HBA surgery, the left and right superior PVs were more likely to have a higher fluid injection volume. Furthermore, the procedure time was longer in the HBA group than in the CBA group [weighted mean difference (95% CI) = 14.24 (4.39-24.09), P = 0.005]. Patients in the CBA group could have an increased risk of AF occurrence, and accepted more antiarrhythmic drug therapy; however, the result was insignificant. Conclusions: HBA and CBA are practical ablation approaches for AF treatment. Patients who received HBA had a higher incidence of TUA and longer procedure time. Clinical outcomes during the mid-term follow-up between HBA and CBA were comparable. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=259487, identifier: CRD42021259487.
