Abstract
Following its introduction into clinical practice, the cryoballoon (CB) has proved to be an alternative for pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) in patients with paroxysmal and persistent atrial fibrillation (AF). In comparison with the standard radiofrequency procedure, the CB method results in a shorter procedure time and learning curve as well as a higher degree of reproducibility. A new cryoballoon (NCB) was recently introduced on the market. In this review, we addressed the following questions: Is the new system technically similar to the previous one? Is there a difference in terms of periprocedural parameters? Are acute success and complication rates similar? Is the learning curve different?