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

Cryoballoon or Radiofrequency Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation Assessed by Continuous Monitoring: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

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

Outcomes of Cryoballoon or Radiofrequency Ablation in Symptomatic Paroxysmal or Persistent Atrial Fibrillation.

Cryoballoon ablation vs. antiarrhythmic drugs: first-line therapy for patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation

Cryoballoon Vs. Robotic Magnetic Navigation-Guided Radiofrequency Ablation in Patients with Persistent Atrial Fibrillation: 5-Year Outcomes

Second-generation Cryoballoon Versus Contact Force Radiofrequency Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation: an Updated Meta-Analysis of Evidence from Randomized Controlled Trials

Long-term outcomes of a time to isolation - based strategy for cryoballoon ablation compared to radiofrequency ablation in patients with symptomatic paroxysmal atrial fibrillation

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

Pulsed Field or Conventional Thermal Ablation for Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation

Impact of initial rhythm control with cryoballoon ablation versus drug therapy on atrial fibrillation recurrence and quality of life: results from the Cryo-FIRST study

Ablation Strategies for Repeat Procedures in Atrial Fibrillation Recurrences Despite Durable Pulmonary Vein Isolation: The Prospective Randomized ASTRO AF Multicenter Trial

Cryoballoon vs. laser balloon ablation for atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis

VP122 Cryoballoon Versus Radiofrequency Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation

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

Cryoballoon versus Radiofrequency Catheter Ablation for Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation

Comparison of the Mid-Term Outcomes of Robotic Magnetic Navigation-Guided Radiofrequency Ablation versus Cryoballoon Ablation for Persistent Atrial Fibrillation.

Pulsed electric field, cryoballoon, and radiofrequency for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation ablation: a propensity score-matched comparison

Quality of life measured in first-line therapy during the Cryo-FIRST study: a comparison between cryoballoon catheter ablation versus antiarrhythmic drug therapy

Pulsed Field vs Conventional Thermal Ablation for Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation: Recurrent Atrial Arrhythmia Burden

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

Cryoballoon Ablation for Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation: Long-Term Clinical Outcome