Abstract:Objective: Most published studies have aimed to compare the effectiveness of different treatment strategies for atrial fibrillation (AF), while few articles have comprehensively compared the safety of therapeutic measures.The aim of the article was to assess the safety of different therapeutic measures (different ablation techniques, antiarrhythmic drugs and surgery) in patients with AF. Method: A comprehensive and systematic search was undertaken across various databases, namely PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science, with the aim of identifying pertinent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that delve into the safety aspects of diverse atrial fibrillation treatment strategies. The search was conducted up until December 1st, 2023. R4.2.3 software gemtc package was used for data analysis, Review Manager 5.3 was used for quality assessment of included studies, and stata15.0 was used for publication bias.Safety is defined as the adverse outcomes that occur in different treatment strategies for atrial fibrillation, with specific adverse events as described below. Result: 22 RCTs (involving 5073 subjects) with interventions including cryoballoon ablation (CA), radiofrequency ablation (RF), laser balloon ablation (LB), pulmonary vein ablation catheter (PVAC), antiarrhythmic drugs (AADS), and surgery (SA) were included in this study. In this article, medication and surgery were combined into the same intervention (non-traditional treatment measure, UT). UT was not associated with pericardial effusion (OR:4.27e-10, 95%CI:4.91e-30-0.0663), infections (OR:0.248, 95%CI:0.0584-0.89), arrhythmias (OR:0.609,95%CI:0.393-0.936), pseudoaneurysms (OR:5.57e-10, 95%CI:1.16e-31-0.934) and pulmonary vein stenosis (OR:1.16e-09, 95%CI:6.56e-24-0.194). Complications of the procedure were mainly mechanical injuries. Among the various ablation strategies, radiofrequency ablation had a lower incidence of phrenic nerve palsy and pain (OR:4.01e-06, 95%CI:1.18e-17-0.710) than cryoballoon ablation, which was superior to radiofrequency ablation in terms of infection rates. Finally, there were no significant differences between the various ablation techniques in terms of other complication rates. Conclusion: Because the interventions in the UT group were predominantly AADS and antiarrhythmic drug therapy didn't have some of the common aggressive complications of ablation strategies, the UT group had a low rate of complications such as pericardial effusion, postprocedural arrhythmia, pseudoaneurysm, and pulmonary vein stenosis compared with various catheter ablation strategies. Additionally, we also discovered between the various ablation technology groups, there was no significant difference in the incidence of major adverse events. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO registry number:CRD42024566530.

Comparisons of Procedural Characteristics and Clinical Outcomes Between SMARTTOUCH SURROUNDFLOW Catheter and Other Catheters for Atrial Fibrillation Radiofrequency Catheter Ablation: a Systematic Literature Review

Radiofrequency Ablation Using the ThermoCool SmartTouch Catheter Guided by Ablation Index Versus Antiarrhythmic Drugs in Atrial Fibrillation Treatment in China: a Cost-Consequence Analysis.

Role of Contact Force‐guided Radiofrequency Catheter Ablation for Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis

Real-world outcomes comparison among adults with atrial fibrillation undergoing catheter ablation with a contact force porous tip catheter versus a second-generation cryoballoon catheter: a retrospective analysis of multihospital US database

Real-world effectiveness and safety of a contact force-sensing catheter for atrial fibrillation ablation in China

Impact of contact force technology on reducing the recurrence and major complications of atrial fibrillation ablation: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Acute procedural safety of the latest radiofrequency ablation catheters in atrial fibrillation ablation: Data from a large prospective ablation registry

Surgical versus catheter ablation in atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials

Comparing the effects of common ablation catheter and irrigated ablation catheter on common atrial flutter

The Comparison Between Robotic and Manual Ablations in the Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Second-generation Cryoballoon Versus Contact Force Radiofrequency Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation: an Updated Meta-Analysis of Evidence from Randomized Controlled Trials

Safety And Efficiency Of The TactiCath Contact Force Ablation Catheter During Circumferential Pulmonary Vein Isolation Ablation Procedures

Anesthetic Techniques for Ablation in Atrial Fibrillation: A Comparative Review

Utilization of Steerable Sheath Improves the Efficiency of Atrial Fibrillation Ablation Guided by Robotic Magnetic Navigation Compared with Fixed‐curve Sheath

Safety of different therapies for atrial fibrillation: a network meta-analysis

Long-Term Observation Of Catheter Ablation Vs. Pharmacotherapy In The Management Of Persistent And Long-Standing Persistent Atrial Fibrillation (Capa Study)

Catheter ablation vs. thoracoscopic surgical ablation in long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation: CASA-AF randomized controlled trial

STABLE-SR (electrophysiological Substrate Ablation in the Left Atrium During Sinus Rhythm) for the Treatment of Nonparoxysmal Atrial Fibrillation A Prospective, Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial

Systematic Review: Comparative Effectiveness of Radiofrequency Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation

Safety and acute efficacy of catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation with pulsed field ablation vs thermal energy ablation: A meta-analysis of single proportions

Comparison of Catheter Ablation and Surgical Ablation in Patients with Long-Standing Persistent Atrial Fibrillation and Rheumatic Heart Disease: A Four-Year Follow-Up Study