Cryoballoon or Radiofrequency Ablation for Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation

TY - JOUR

T1 - Cryoballoon or Radiofrequency Ablation for Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation

AU - Kuck, Karl-Heinz

AU - Brugada, Josep

AU - Fürnkranz, Alexander

AU - Metzner, Andreas

AU - Ouyang, Feifan

AU - Chun, K R Julian

AU - Elvan, Arif

AU - Arentz, Thomas

AU - Bestehorn, Kurt

AU - Pocock, Stuart J

AU - Albenque, Jean-Paul

AU - Tondo, Claudio

AU - FIRE AND ICE Investigators

PY - 2016/6/9

Y1 - 2016/6/9

N2 - BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend pulmonary-vein isolation by means of catheter ablation as treatment for drug-refractory paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. Radiofrequency ablation is the most common method, and cryoballoon ablation is the second most frequently used technology.METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, randomized trial to determine whether cryoballoon ablation was noninferior to radiofrequency ablation in symptomatic patients with drug-refractory paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. The primary efficacy end point in a time-to-event analysis was the first documented clinical failure (recurrence of atrial fibrillation, occurrence of atrial flutter or atrial tachycardia, use of antiarrhythmic drugs, or repeat ablation) following a 90-day period after the index ablation. The noninferiority margin was prespecified as a hazard ratio of 1.43. The primary safety end point was a composite of death, cerebrovascular events, or serious treatment-related adverse events.RESULTS: A total of 762 patients underwent randomization (378 assigned to cryoballoon ablation and 384 assigned to radiofrequency ablation). The mean duration of follow-up was 1.5 years. The primary efficacy end point occurred in 138 patients in the cryoballoon group and in 143 in the radiofrequency group (1-year Kaplan-Meier event rate estimates, 34.6% and 35.9%, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76 to 1.22; P<0.001 for noninferiority). The primary safety end point occurred in 40 patients in the cryoballoon group and in 51 patients in the radiofrequency group (1-year Kaplan-Meier event rate estimates, 10.2% and 12.8%, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.52 to 1.18; P=0.24).CONCLUSIONS: In this randomized trial, cryoballoon ablation was noninferior to radiofrequency ablation with respect to efficacy for the treatment of patients with drug-refractory paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, and there was no significant difference between the two methods with regard to overall safety. (Funded by Medtronic; FIRE AND ICE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01490814.).

AB - BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend pulmonary-vein isolation by means of catheter ablation as treatment for drug-refractory paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. Radiofrequency ablation is the most common method, and cryoballoon ablation is the second most frequently used technology.METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, randomized trial to determine whether cryoballoon ablation was noninferior to radiofrequency ablation in symptomatic patients with drug-refractory paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. The primary efficacy end point in a time-to-event analysis was the first documented clinical failure (recurrence of atrial fibrillation, occurrence of atrial flutter or atrial tachycardia, use of antiarrhythmic drugs, or repeat ablation) following a 90-day period after the index ablation. The noninferiority margin was prespecified as a hazard ratio of 1.43. The primary safety end point was a composite of death, cerebrovascular events, or serious treatment-related adverse events.RESULTS: A total of 762 patients underwent randomization (378 assigned to cryoballoon ablation and 384 assigned to radiofrequency ablation). The mean duration of follow-up was 1.5 years. The primary efficacy end point occurred in 138 patients in the cryoballoon group and in 143 in the radiofrequency group (1-year Kaplan-Meier event rate estimates, 34.6% and 35.9%, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76 to 1.22; P<0.001 for noninferiority). The primary safety end point occurred in 40 patients in the cryoballoon group and in 51 patients in the radiofrequency group (1-year Kaplan-Meier event rate estimates, 10.2% and 12.8%, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.52 to 1.18; P=0.24).CONCLUSIONS: In this randomized trial, cryoballoon ablation was noninferior to radiofrequency ablation with respect to efficacy for the treatment of patients with drug-refractory paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, and there was no significant difference between the two methods with regard to overall safety. (Funded by Medtronic; FIRE AND ICE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01490814.).

KW - Aged

KW - Atrial Fibrillation/surgery

KW - Catheter Ablation/instrumentation

KW - Cryosurgery/methods

KW - Disease-Free Survival

KW - Female

KW - Follow-Up Studies

KW - Humans

KW - Kaplan-Meier Estimate

KW - Male

KW - Middle Aged

KW - Postoperative Complications

KW - Recurrence

KW - Reoperation

KW - Single-Blind Method

U2 - 10.1056/NEJMoa1602014

DO - 10.1056/NEJMoa1602014

M3 - SCORING: Journal article

C2 - 27042964

VL - 374

SP - 2235

EP - 2245

JO - NEW ENGL J MED

JF - NEW ENGL J MED

SN - 0028-4793

IS - 23

ER -