Trial reportJournal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing2021
Clinical efficacy of "ICE-FIRE" ablation for non-paroxysmal atrial fibrillation.
Trial report in Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Representation of Women in Atrial Fibrillation Ablation Randomized Controlled Trials: Systematic Review.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2025Pooled it
- Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety Endpoints of Five Therapies for Atrial Fibrillation: A Network Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeCatheter ablation is less successful for non-paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (NPAF) according to numerous follow-up studies. The choice of ablation strategy for patients with NPAF remains controversial. The objective of the study was to explore the clinical efficacy of the "ICE-FIRE" ablation.
methodsNinety NPAF patients were enrolled. Patients were randomly divided into RF (treated with circumferential pulmonary vein isolation (CPVI) and additional substrate modification by radiofrequency ablation) group and I-F (treated with CPVI by cryoablation and additional substrate modification by radiofrequency ablation) group. After CPVI and cardioversion to sinus rhythm, high-density mapping was performed. Eight-one of 90 participants restored to sinus rhythm. Seventy-four of 81 NPAF patients showed low-voltage zone. Substrates with low-voltage zone were targeted for further modification. Participants were followed at baseline, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after the initial ablation.
resultsThe I-F group shared more X-ray exposure (I-F, 264.4 ± 97.4 mGy; RF, 224.9 ± 62.0 mGy; P = 0.039) and less duration of the procedure (I-F, 150.3 ± 27.5 min; RF, 174.2 ± 38.5 min; P = 0.003) compared to RF group. The freedom from atrial arrhythmia recurrence at 12 months post-ablation was similar between the RF and I-F groups (RF, 57.1%; I-F, 71.8%; P = 0.197). However, I-F group experienced lower rehospitalization rate of AF recurrence (RF, 42.9%; I-F, 20.5%; P = 0.038).
conclusionsIn NPAF patients requiring substrate mapping and modification, the "ICE-FIRE" ablation demonstrated non-inferior clinical efficacy and lower rehospitalization rate of AF recurrence when compared with pure radiofrequency ablation strategy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.