INTRODUCTION
Balloon-based pulmonary vein isolation (PVI), whether hot balloon
ablation (HBA) or cryoballoon ablation (CBA), is a widely accepted
therapeutic strategy for atrial fibrillation (AF). Reported clinical
outcomes of HBA and CBA for paroxysmal AF are equally good despite the
fact that CBA produces wider ablation areas than those produced by
HBA.1 Several recently
reported studies have shown the clinical utility of CBA for persistent
AF (PerAF); outcomes are similar to those obtained by conventional
radiofrequency (RF)
ablation.2,3However, the clinical efficacy and safety of HBA in cases of PerAF
remain undetermined. Therefore, we conducted a retrospective study in
which we compared the ablation area, complications, and clinical
outcomes of HBA and CBA performed for PerAF.