<HashMap><database>biostudies-literature</database><scores/><additional><omics_type>Unknown</omics_type><volume>105(4)</volume><submitter>Bokhari SFH</submitter><pubmed_abstract>&lt;h4>Background&lt;/h4>Atrial fibrillation (AF) remains the most common sustained cardiac arrhythmia. Pulsed field ablation (PFA) and cryoablation (CA) aim to isolate pulmonary veins and prevent AF recurrence. This meta-analysis aims to provide a comprehensive comparison of PFA and CA in treatment of AF in context of efficacy, procedural characteristics, and safety profiles.&lt;h4>Methods&lt;/h4>A comprehensive literature search of databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, Science Direct and Google Scholar) was conducted from their inception to September 2024. Statistical analyses were conducted using Cochrane's RevMan 5.4 software.&lt;h4>Results&lt;/h4>Twenty studies (n = 4638; PFA = 2172, CA = 3033) were included in this meta-analysis. Regarding efficacy outcomes, PFA significantly reduced AF recurrence (odd</pubmed_abstract><journal>Medicine</journal><pagination>e47353</pagination><full_dataset_link>https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC12851682</full_dataset_link><repository>biostudies-literature</repository><pubmed_title>Safety and efficacy of pulsed field ablation versus cryoablation for atrial fibrillation: A comprehensive meta-analysis.</pubmed_title><pmcid>PMC12851682</pmcid><pubmed_authors>Asif A</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Waleed M</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Mubashir MM</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Sana H</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Bakht D</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Iqbal A</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Ali K</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Qureshi MA</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Ali MKB</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Hassan A</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Awais MN</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Bokhari SFH</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Amir M</pubmed_authors></additional><is_claimable>false</is_claimable><name>Safety and efficacy of pulsed field ablation versus cryoablation for atrial fibrillation: A comprehensive meta-analysis.</name><description>&lt;h4>Background&lt;/h4>Atrial fibrillation (AF) remains the most common sustained cardiac arrhythmia. Pulsed field ablation (PFA) and cryoablation (CA) aim to isolate pulmonary veins and prevent AF recurrence. This meta-analysis aims to provide a comprehensive comparison of PFA and CA in treatment of AF in context of efficacy, procedural characteristics, and safety profiles.&lt;h4>Methods&lt;/h4>A comprehensive literature search of databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, Science Direct and Google Scholar) was conducted from their inception to September 2024. Statistical analyses were conducted using Cochrane's RevMan 5.4 software.&lt;h4>Results&lt;/h4>Twenty studies (n = 4638; PFA = 2172, CA = 3033) were included in this meta-analysis. Regarding efficacy outcomes, PFA significantly reduced AF recurrence (odd</description><dates><release>2026-01-01T00:00:00Z</release><publication>2026 Jan</publication><modification>2026-06-14T05:45:29.563Z</modification><creation>2026-06-14T03:08:47.597Z</creation></dates><accession>S-EPMC12851682</accession><cross_references><pubmed>41578543</pubmed><doi>10.1097/MD.0000000000047353</doi></cross_references></HashMap>