Universitätspublikationen
Refine
Document Type
- Article (3)
Language
- English (3)
Has Fulltext
- yes (3)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (3)
Keywords
- catheter ablation (3) (remove)
Institute
- Medizin (3)
The FIRE AND ICE Trial (ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT01490814) was initiated in 2012 as a multicenter, randomized, head‐to‐head comparison of radiofrequency current (RFC) and cryoballoon catheter ablation for the treatment of patients with drug‐refractory symptomatic paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF). Six years on, it remains the largest, randomized comparison of safety and efficacy between 2 catheter ablation modalities used in the treatment of patients with AF. This landmark trial not only established noninferiority between cryoballoon and RFC ablation for pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) with regard to the study's efficacy and safety primary end points,1 but also, it evaluated secondary end points that were critical for a representative study interpretation. ...
Objectives: The CRYO4PERSISTENT AF (Cryoballoon Ablation for Early Persistent Atrial Fibrillation) trial aims to report long-term outcomes after a single pulmonary vein isolation (PVI)–only ablation procedure using the second-generation cryoballoon in persistent atrial fibrillation (PerAF) patients.
Background: Pulmonary vein isolation is recognized as the cornerstone of atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation, including ablation of PerAF.
Methods: The CRYO4PERSISTENT AF trial (NCT02213731) is a prospective, multicenter, single-arm trial designed to assess single-procedure outcomes of PVI using the cryoballoon. The primary endpoint was freedom from AF, atrial flutter, or atrial tachycardia ≥30 s after a 90-day blanking period. After enrollment, but before ablation, patients without 100% AF burden (18-h Holter monitoring or 3 consecutive electrocardiograms in a time frame ≥14 days) were excluded. Patients were followed at 3, 6, and 12 months, with 48-h Holter monitoring at 6 and 12 months. Quality of life and symptoms were evaluated at baseline and 12 months. Arrhythmia recurrence and adverse events were adjudicated by an independent committee.
Results: A total of 101 patients (62 ± 11 years of age, 74% men, left ventricular ejection fraction 56 ± 8%, left atrial diameter 43 ± 5 mm) meeting criteria, undergoing cryoballoon-based PVI, with follow-up data, were included. Kaplan-Meier estimate of freedom from AF, atrial flutter, or atrial tachycardia recurrence was 60.7% at 12 months. Compared with baseline, there were significantly fewer patients with arrhythmia-related symptoms at 12 months (16% vs. 92%; p < 0.0001). The symptom reduction was supported by significant improvement in 36-Item Short Form Health Survey composite scores and European Heart Rhythm Association score at 12 months. The only device related event was transient phrenic nerve injury in 2 (2%) patients, with resolution pre-discharge.
Conclusions: Cryoballoon ablation for treatment of PerAF demonstrated 61% single-procedure success at 12 months post-ablation in addition to significant reduction in arrhythmia-related symptoms and improved quality of life. (Cryoballoon Ablation for Early Persistent Atrial Fibrillation [Cryo4 Persistent AF]; NCT02213731)
Background: This study sought to assess payer costs following cryoballoon or radiofrequency current (RFC) catheter ablation of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation in the randomized FIRE AND ICE trial.
Methods and Results: A trial period analysis of healthcare costs evaluated the impact of ablation modality (cryoballoon versus RFC) on differences in resource use and associated payer costs. Analyses were based on repeat interventions, rehospitalizations, and cardioversions during the trial, with unit costs based on 3 national healthcare systems (Germany [€], the United Kingdom [£], and the United States [Embedded Image]). Total payer costs were calculated by applying standard unit costs to hospital stays, using International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision diagnoses and procedure codes that were mapped to country‐specific diagnosis‐related groups. Patients (N=750) randomized 1:1 to cryoballoon (n=374) or RFC (n=376) ablation were followed for a mean of 1.5 years. Resource use was lower in the cryoballoon than the RFC group (205 hospitalizations and/or interventions in 122 patients versus 268 events in 154 patients). The cost differences per patient in mean total payer costs during follow‐up were €640, £364, and Embedded Image925 in favor of cryoballoon ablation (P=0.012, 0.013, and 0.016, respectively). This resulted in trial period total cost savings of €245 000, £140 000, and Embedded Image355 000.
Conclusions: When compared with RFC ablation, cryoballoon ablation was associated with a reduction in resource use and payer costs. In all 3 national healthcare systems analyzed, this reduction resulted in substantial trial period cost savings, primarily attributable to fewer repeat ablations and a reduction in cardiovascular rehospitalizations with cryoballoon ablation.
Clinical Trial Registration: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Identifier: NCT01490814.