Abstract:Recently, the FIRE AND ICE Trial comparing cryoballoon ablation and radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA) in patients with symptomatic, drug-refractory paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF) was reported. This was a randomized controlled non-inferiority trial with the primacy efficacy endpoint of time to first documented recurrent AF or atrial tachycardia (AT), prescription of antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs), or repeat ablation after a 90-day blanking period. After a mean follow-up of 1.5 years, non-inferiority of cryoballoon ablation was confirmed; the two treatments did not differ with respect to either efficacy or overall safety (a composite of all-cause death, allcause cerebrovascular events, and serious treatment-related adverse events). In the current issue of the journal, the authors publish some of the secondary endpoints from the FIRE AND ICE trial, namely allcause and cardiovascular rehospitalizations, repeat ablations, direct current cardioversions, and quality of life. These are indeed important endpoints to report, addressing both the healthcare burden of an intervention and the patients’ perception of success. Cryoballoon ablation performed significantly better in reducing allcause and cardiovascular rehospitalizations, including repeat ablations and direct current cardioversions, whereas there was no difference in improving quality of life. However, these findings raise some questions. For cardiovascular rehospitalizations, AF/AT recurrence was the main event driving the difference between groups. Why were these marked differences not accompanied by any alterations in the primary efficacy endpoint of arrhythmia control between the two groups? The primary efficacy endpoint was a composite endpoint that also included AT/AF recurrence/AAD prescriptions that did not result in rehospitalizations or repeat ablations. This analysis takes into account only those AT/AF recurrences that resulted in rehospitalizations. Therefore, one can infer that patients after RFCA are more symptomatic, requiring more cardioversions or repeat ablation compared with simple AAD prescription. However, it is important to note that this study also included events occurring in the blanking period. Considering the time-to-event curves and plots depicting events during follow-up, the difference in direct current cardioversions between groups was probably not significant beyond the blanking period. Similarly, for both all-cause and cardiovascular rehospitalizations, a larger difference in events occurred during the blanking period (Figure 1). Do the differences between groups mainly reflect a difference during the first 90 days? This might be explained by a heightened inflammatory response after RFCA, with consequent more frequent early recurrences, which did not appear to influence later clinical outcomes in this cohort. Another explanation could be a lower prevalence of persistent pulmonary vein (PV) isolation in this group. On one hand, operators in the participating centres were more familiar with cryoballoon ablation, and contact force was employed only in one-third of RFCA procedures. Moreover, there was no direction regarding maintenance of a contact force range, and power was delivered up to 30 W in the posterior wall and roof and 40 W in the anterior aspect of the PVs, without any mention of contact force-guided power titration. Lastly, no drug challenge (adenosine or isoproterenol) was employed after ablation—which has been proven useful with RFCA. It is also important to highlight that the study protocol specified that arrhythmia-related events during the blanking period would not be counted towards the primary endpoints. Therefore, this being an unblinded study, a potential bias may have affected the results as regards the decision on the type of intervention (AAD, cardioversion, or repeat ablation). Another puzzling result is the difference in major bleeding events between groups. It is not easy to find a plausible explanation for it, and no clear definition for major bleeding is given. It does not appear to be related to a different rate in cardiac tamponades, also considering that adverse events occurring during the index hospitalization (such as cardiac perforation-related tamponades) should not be included in this analysis. In the original FIRE AND ICE trial, it was noted that a higher number of groin complications occurred in the

Impact of Intracardiac Echocardiography Usage on the Safety of Cryoballoon Atrial Fibrillation Ablation: Subanalysis of the Prospective FREEZE Cluster Cohort Study.

Use of Intracardiac Echocardiography in Vein of Marshall Ethanol Infusion for Ablation of Persistent Atrial Fibrillation.

Rationale and Study Design for Evaluating the Efficacy and Safety of Intracardiac Echocardiography-Guided Minimal-Fluoroscopy Ablation in Patients with Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation: A Non-Inferior, Multi-Center, Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial (PAF-ICE Trial)

Intracardiac Echocardiography is a Safe and Effective Alternative to Transesophageal Echocardiography for Left Atrial Appendage Thrombus Evaluation at the Time of Atrial Fibrillation Ablation: the ICE‐TEE Study

Electrophysiology lab efficiency comparison between cryoballoon and point-by-point radiofrequency ablation: a German sub-analysis of the FREEZE Cohort study

Impact of Intracardiac Echocardiography on Radiation Exposure During Adult Congenital Heart Disease Catheter-Based Interventions

To burn or to freeze: a burning question yet to be resolved

Radiofrequency ablation for treatment of atrial fibrillation with the use of intracardiac echocardiography versus without intracardiac echocardiography: A meta‐analysis of observational and randomized studies

The Efficacy and Safety of Cryoballoon Versus Radiofrequency Ablation for the Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation: A Meta-Analysis of 15 International Randomized Trials

Cryoballoon Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation in Patients with Heart Failure with Mildly Reduced and Preserved Ejection Fraction.

Repeat Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation Recurrence Post Cryoballoon or Radiofrequency Ablation in the FIRE AND ICE Trial

Long-term outcomes of catheter ablation for ventricular arrhythmias: comparing techniques with and without intracardiac echocardiography - what matters?

The clinical impact of the left atrial posterior wall lesion formation by the cryoballoon application for persistent atrial fibrillation: Feasibility and clinical implications

Results of the Cryo-Vest Study

Incidence of cryoballoon expansion dislodgement during pulmonary vein isolation-An underappreciated frequent cause of incomplete isolation

Pulsed field ablation and cryoballoon ablation for pulmonary vein isolation: insights on efficacy, safety and cardiac function

Cryoablation of atrial fibrillation in "very severe" obese patients (BMI ≥ 40): Indications, feasibility, procedural safety and efficacy, and clinical outcome (the ICE‐Obese Extreme)

Randomised clinical trial of cryoballoon versus irrigated radio frequency catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation—the effect of double short versus standard exposure cryoablation duration during pulmonary vein isolation (CIRCA-DOSE): methods and rationale

Efficacy and safety of pulmonary vein isolation with pulsed field ablation vs. novel cryoballoon ablation system for atrial fibrillation

Pulsed Field Versus Cryoballoon Pulmonary Vein Isolation for Atrial Fibrillation: Efficacy, Safety, and Long-Term Follow-Up in a 400-Patient Cohort

Pulsed field versus cryoballoon ablation for atrial fibrillation: a real-world observational study on procedural outcomes and efficacy