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.