Open AccessThe FIRE AND ICE Trial: What We Know, What We Can Still Learn, and What We Need to Address in the Future
Author(s) -
Kuck KarlHeinz,
Brugada Josep,
Schlüter Michael,
Braegelmann Kendra M.,
Kueffer Fred J.,
Chun K. R. Julian,
Albenque JeanPaul,
Tondo Claudio,
Calkins Hugh
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
journal of the american heart association
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.494
H-Index - 85
ISSN - 2047-9980
DOI - 10.1161/jaha.118.010777
Subject(s) - medicine , art history , classics , history
In 2012, the year the FIRE AND ICE Trial was initiated, the European Society of Cardiology and the Heart Rhythm Society consensus statements recognized RFC as the dominant energy source for AF catheter ablation and discussed PVI as a promising treatment approach.14, 15 In response to the FIRE AND ICE Trial and many other trials, the consensus documents were updated to recognize PVI as a safe and effective strategy for the treatment of AF with either of the 2 leading catheter ablation modalities, cryoballoon or RFC ablation.16, 17 Evaluation of the comprehensive end points, in addition to the primary end point that demonstrated noninferiority between the treatment modalities, may have contributed to the acceptance and adoption of cryoballoon ablation. Indeed, secondary end points of the trial were critical in identifying clinically important differences between the 2 treatment cohorts. Thoughtful design and rigorous assessment of secondary outcomes of future clinical trials may be essential to defining the patient‐specific impact of new catheter ablation technologies for the treatment of AF.