. 2010 Aug 18;12(11):1522–1525. doi: 10.1093/europace/euq294

Table 3.

Comparison of procedural and outcome data in studies comparing 4 and 6 mm tips for slow pathway ablation

Authors	Nr of cryoablation patients	Study design	Acute success	Follow-up (months)	Recurrences	Temporary AV block (first, second, third)
De Sisti et al.¹⁷	8 (4 mm)	SC, cohort, prospective, 4 and 6 mm	4/8	18^a	4/4	NR (21/69)
De Sisti et al.¹⁷	61 (8 mm)	SC, cohort, prospective, 4 and 6 mm	56/61	18^a	20/59	NR (21/69)
Sandilands et al.²¹	59 (4 mm)	SC, cohort, prospective, 4 vs 6 mm	54/59	18^a	12/54	NR (13/160)
Sandilands et al.²¹	101 (6 mm)		95/101	18^a	7/95	NR (13/160)
Rivard et al. (2007)³¹	152 (4 mm)	SC, 2 cohort, retrospective, 4 vs 6 mm	139/152	6	22/139	6/152
Rivard et al. (2007)³¹	137 (6 mm)	SC, 2 cohort, retrospective, 4 vs 6 mm	123/137	4.7	10/123	12/137

NR, not reported; SC, single centre.

^aSubgroup not specified.