Cited by 1,950Atrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesCardiac Arrhythmias and TreatmentsCardiac pacing and defibrillation studies

Cryoballoon or Radiofrequency Ablation for Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation

Open access
Kuck, Karl-Heinz, Brugada, Josep, Fürnkranz, Alexander, Metzner, Andreas, Ouyang, Feifan, Chun, K.R. Julian, Elvan, Arif, Arentz, Thomas +4 more·2016·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend pulmonary-vein isolation by means of catheter ablation as treatment for drug-refractory paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. Radiofrequency ablation is the most common method, and cryoballoon ablation is the second most frequently used technology. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, randomized trial to determine whether cryoballoon ablation was noninferior to radiofrequency ablation in symptomatic patients with drug-refractory paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. The primary efficacy end point in a time-to-event analysis was the first documented clinical failure (recurrence of atrial fibrillation, occurrence of atrial flutter or atrial tachycardia, use of antiarrhythmic drugs, or repeat ablation) following a 90-day period after the index ablation. The noninferiority margin was prespecified as a hazard ratio of 1.43. The primary safety end point was a composite of death, cerebrovascular events, or serious treatment-related adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 762 patients underwent randomization (378 assigned to cryoballoon ablation and 384 assigned to radiofrequency ablation). The mean duration of follow-up was 1.5 years. The primary efficacy end point occurred in 138 patients in the cryoballoon group and in 143 in the radiofrequency group (1-year Kaplan-Meier event rate estimates, 34.6% and 35.9%, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76 to 1.22; P<0.001 for noninferiority). The primary safety end point occurred in 40 patients in the cryoballoon group and in 51 patients in the radiofrequency group (1-year Kaplan-Meier event rate estimates, 10.2% and 12.8%, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.52 to 1.18; P=0.24). CONCLUSIONS: In this randomized trial, cryoballoon ablation was noninferior to radiofrequency ablation with respect to efficacy for the treatment of patients with drug-refractory paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, and there was no significant difference between the two methods with regard to overall safety. (Funded by Medtronic; FIRE AND ICE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01490814.).

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejmoa1602014

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Verma A, Jiang C, Betts TR, et al. Ap- proaches to catheter ablation for persis- tent atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med 2015; 372: 1812-22.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kuck, K.-H., Brugada, J., Fürnkranz, A., Metzner, A., Ouyang, F., Chun, K. R. J., Elvan, A., Arentz, T., Bestehorn, K., Pocock, S. J., Albenque, J.-P., & Tondo, C.
Affiliations
University of Milan (IT)
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2016-06-09
Volume
374
Issue
23
Pages
2235-2245
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2333001326
Cited by
1,950
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 127 · 2025: 182 · 2024: 184 · 2023: 194 · 2022: 201 · 2021: 218 · 2020: 223 · 2019: 196 · 2018: 176 · 2017: 179 · 2016: 67
FWCI
169.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • New England Journal of Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • LSHTM Research Online (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) (acceptedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Atrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiac Arrhythmias and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
Keywords
paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, cryoballoon ablation, radiofrequency ablation, pulmonary vein isolation, catheter ablation, non-inferiority, drug-refractory atrial fibrillation, atrial flutter, atrial tachycardia, antiarrhythmic drug use, repeat ablation, treatment-related adverse events, mortality, cerebrovascular events
MeSH terms
Aged, Atrial Fibrillation, Cryosurgery, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Postoperative Complications, Recurrence, Reoperation, Single-Blind Method, Catheter Ablation, Disease-Free Survival, Kaplan-Meier Estimate

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review