Search Results of our Search Strategy:
We compiled 9244 publications through extensive searches in online databases, grey literature, and randomized control trial registers. 7,116 studies were filtered out for not meeting the criteria of being randomized control trials, and 1,371 duplicate articles were removed. Two screeners AK and KA screened the titles and abstracts of 707 articles and excluded 697. We were left with 10 studies, 1 of which was not finished, and we were not able to get preliminary results from the authors. The screeners agreed on 2 studies but disagreed on one. A third-party screener MR arbitrated and decided that the disputed article should not be included. The articles were excluded for not being RCT’s (n=2) and not exploring cryoablation or AAD’s as “first-line therapy” (n=6). We were left with 2 studies that met the eligibility criteria and were included in the analysis. (Table 1)
The studies included in this review were conducted in Europe and America. Both randomized controlled trials were published in 2021. As for blinding they both decided to do an open blind-end point study. Both studies aimed to compare cryoballoon CA against AAD therapy in treatment naïve patients with atrial fibrillation. Of the total 303 participants in Andrade et al’s (11) study, 154 patients underwent Cryoablation and 149 patients followed an AAD treatment course. In Kunis et al’s (13) study, 107 participants underwent Cryoablation and 111 participants followed an AAD treatment course out of a total of 218 randomized participants. Both studies also included a follow-up time of 12 months where participants received periodic clinic visits, and both studies had a 90-day blanking period.