Comparison of Cryoballoon Ablation Methods in Pulmonary Vein Isolation

<i>Background and Objectives:</i> Cryoballoon ablation is a well-established therapy for atrial fibrillation (AF), enabling pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) using a single-shot technique. The two primary systems-Medtronic Arctic Front and the newer Boston Scientific POLARx-differ in design and performance characteristics, but few direct comparisons exist. This study aimed to compare the biophysical parameters and mid-term outcomes of the POLARx and Arctic Front cryoballoon systems. <i>Materials and Methods:</i> In a retrospective analysis of 200 patients who underwent cryoballoon ablation for paroxysmal or persistent AF, patients were grouped by ablation system: POLARx (<i>n</i> = 107) and Arctic Front (<i>n</i> = 93). Key parameters including nadir balloon temperatures, time to reach -40 °C, procedure duration, dose area product (DAP), complication rates, and recurrence of AF were assessed. <i>Results:</i> The POLARx system achieved significantly lower nadir temperatures in all pulmonary veins compared to Arctic Front (left superior PV: -57.6 ± 5.0 °C vs. -50.1 ± 5.7 °C, <i>p</i> < 0.001). Time to reach -40 °C was also shorter with POLARx (left superior PV: 23.3 ± 7.3 s vs. 33.3 ± 11.5 s, <i>p</i> < 0.001). Despite these advantages, procedure time was longer in the POLARx group (64.7 ± 14.8 min vs. 51.6 ± 19.7 min, <i>p</i> < 0.001). AF recurrence at 11.8 months was similar (33.6% in POLARx vs. 39.8% in Arctic Front, <i>p</i> = 0.93). Phrenic nerve palsy occurred in 5.0% (POLARx) and 4.3% (Arctic Front), with no cases of cardiac tamponade. <i>Conclusions:</i> While both systems demonstrated similar efficacy and safety, POLARx was associated with superior cooling kinetics and biophysical performance.