Background：Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) is the cornerstone of atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation surgery. Cryoballoon ablation (CBA), a traditional catheter ablation technique, enjoys widespread clinical application. In contrast, Pulsed field ablation (PFA) is a novel non thermal ablation technique for the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF) patients, with safety comparable to traditional catheter ablation surgery. The present study aims to evaluate and compare the procedural efficiency and safety profiles of PFA and CBA in the management of AF. Methods：We performed a systematic search across PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase databases, encompassing the literature up to February 2024, to inform our systematic review and meta-analysis. When assessing outcome indicators, the risk ratio (RR) and its corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated for dichotomous variables. For continuous variables, the mean difference (MD) and the associated 95% CI were determined. In this scenario, a Relative Risk (RR) value less than 1 and a Mean Difference (MD) value less than 0 are deemed favorable for the PFA group. This could translate to a reduced likelihood of surgical complications or enhanced surgical performance within the PFA group. Results：In this analysis, nine observational studies encompassing 2,875 patients with AF were included. Among these, 38% (n=1105) were treated with PFA, while 62% (n=1,770) received CBA. The results indicated that PFA was associated with a significantly shorter surgical duration compared to CBA, with a mean difference (MD) of -10.49 minutes (95% CI [-15.50, -5.49]; p<0.0001). Nevertheless, no statistically significant differences were observed when comparing the two treatment cohorts concerning fluoroscopy time (MD 0.71; 95% CI [-0.45, 1.86]; p=0.23) and the recurrence of atrial arrhythmias during follow-up (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.78-1.14; p=0.57).In terms of perioperative complications, the PFA group showed a significantly decreased risk of phrenic nerve palsy (RR 0.15; 95% CI 0.06-0.39; p<0.0001) and an increased risk of cardiac tamponade (RR 3.48; 95% CI 1.26-9.66; p=0.02) compared to the CBA group. No significant differences were noted between the PFA and CBA groups regarding the incidence of stroke/TIA (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.30-3.22; p=0.99), Vascular access complication (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.36-2.10; p=0.76), atrial esophageal fistula (RR 0.33; 0.01-8.13; p=0.50), and major or minor bleeding events (RR 0.39; 95% CI 0.09-1.74; p=0.22). Conclusions：Compared to CBA, PFA not only shortens surgical time but also shows non-inferiority regarding fluoroscopy time and the recurrence rate of atrial arrhythmias. Both PFA and CBA have distinct advantages concerning perioperative complications. This illustrates that PFA, while being effective, also preserves safety.