Introduction Recently a novel cryoballoon system (POLARx, Boston Scientific) became available for the treatment of atrial fibrillation. This cryoballoon is comparable with Arctic Front Advance Pro (AFA‐Pro, Medtronic), however, it maintains a constant balloon pressure. We compared the procedural efficacy and biophysical characteristics of both systems. Methods One hundred and ten consecutive patients who underwent first‐time cryoballoon ablation (POLARx: n = 57; AFA‐Pro: n = 53) were included in this prospective cohort study. Results Acute isolation was achieved in 99.8% of all pulmonary veins (POLARx: 99.5% vs. AFA‐Pro: 100%, p = 1.00). Total procedure time (81 vs. 67 min, p < .001) and balloon in body time (51 vs. 35 min, p < .001) were longer with POLARx. After a learning curve, these times were similar. Cryoablation with POLARx was associated with shorter time to balloon temperature −30°C (27 vs. 31 s, p < .001) and −40°C (32 vs. 54 s, p < .001), lower balloon nadir temperature (−55°C vs. −47°C, p < .001), and longer thawing time till 0°C (16 vs. 9 s, p < .001). There were no differences in time‐to‐isolation (TTI; POLARx: 45 s vs. AFA‐Pro 43 s, p = .441), however, POLARx was associated with a lower balloon temperature at TTI (−46°C vs. −37°C, p < .001). Factors associated with acute isolation differed between groups. The incidence of phrenic nerve palsy was comparable (POLARx: 3.5% vs. AFA‐Pro: 3.7%). Conclusion The novel cryoballoon is comparable to AFA‐Pro and requires only a short learning curve to get used to the slightly different handling. It was associated with faster cooling rates and lower balloon temperatures but TTI was similar to AFA‐Pro.

No abstract

No abstract