Pulsed field vs cryoballoon ablation: A meta-analysis with Hartung–Knapp, subgroup, and meta-regression analyses

Table 1 Baseline characteristics of included studies, mean ± SD

Ref.	Study design	Follow up period (months)	Age (PFA)	Age (CBA)	Male/female (PFA) (%)	Male/female (CBA) (%)	BMI (PFA)	BMI (CBA)	Hypertension (PFA) (n)	Hypertension (CBA) (n)	Diabetes (PFA) (n)	Diabetes (CBA) (n)	CHA2DS2-VASc score (PFA)	CHA2DS2-VASc score (CBA)
Della Rocca et al[24], 2023	Retrospective cohort	12.3 ± 2.3	62 ± 11.6	61.3 ± 13.0	63.2/36.8	59.7/40.3	27 ± 4.8	27.4 ± 5.0	78	258	16	55	2.00 ± 1.50	2.00 ± 1.49
Isenegger et al[17], 2025	Retrospective cohort	12	65	67	78/22	74/26	27.67 ± 4.51	28 ± 4.51	67	70	11	9	2.00 ± 1.50	2.33 ± 1.50
Kueffer et al[16], 2024	Prospective cohort	12	68.0 ± 9.7	66.7 ± 11.9	76.6/23.4	72.6/27.4	28.4 ± 5.5	28.9 ± 5.6	130	129	39	21	2.33 ± 1.49	2.33 ± 1.49
Maurhofer et al[20], 2024	Prospective cohort	12	62.5 ± 9.4	62.5 ± 12.08	75/25	72.5/27.5	25.87 ± 4.08	26.27 ± 3.47	26	50	3	8	2.00 ± 1.54	2.00 ± 1.51
Schipper et al[18], 2023	Retrospective cohort	12	69 ± 11	67 ± 13	69/31	69/31	27.8 ± 5.0	28.1 ± 4.5	39	37	9	9	3.0 ± 1.8	2.7 ± 1.7
Urbanek et al[19], 2023	Retrospective cohort	12	70 ± 11.2	67.67 ± 14.19	59/41	54/46	27.33 ± 5.23	27.67 ± 4.48	132	141	28	33	2.67 ± 1.49	2.67 ± 2.24
Reichlin et al[22], 2025	Randomized controlled trial	12	64.0 ± 9.4	63.3 ± 9.6	73/27	70/30	27.0 ± 3.9	27.3 ± 4.7	56	58	13	9	2 ± 1.5	2 ± 1.5

It presents a detailed overview of the demographic and clinical characteristics of patients from the studies included in the meta-analysis, stratified by the pulsed field ablation and cryoballoon ablation groups. BMI: Body mass index; CBA: Cryoballoon ablation; PFA: Pulsed field ablation.

Table 2 Quality assessment of included studies

Ref.	Selection (4)	Comparability (2)	Outcome (3)	Total score
Della Rocca et al[24], 2023	4	2	3	8/9
Isenegger et al[17], 2025	4	1	3	7/9
Kueffer et al[16], 2024	4	2	3	8/9
Maurhofer et al[20], 2024	4	2	3	8/9
Schipper et al[18], 2023	4	1	1	6/9
Urbanek et al[19], 2023	4	1	3	7/9
Reichlin et al[22], 2025	4	1	3	7/9

It summarizes the quality assessment of the included cohort studies using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. It provides a total score out of nine for each study and a justification for the score, highlighting aspects of study design such as prospective or retrospective nature, the use of statistical matching, and follow-up duration.