The FIRE AND ICE Trial: What We Know, What We Can Still Learn, and What We Need to Address in the Future

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00023884%3A_____%2F18%3A00008050" target="_blank" >RIV/00023884:_____/18:00008050 - isvavai.cz</a>

Výsledek na webu

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.118.010777" target="_blank" >http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.118.010777</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.118.010777" target="_blank" >10.1161/JAHA.118.010777</a>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

The FIRE AND ICE Trial: What We Know, What We Can Still Learn, and What We Need to Address in the Future

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

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.

Název v anglickém jazyce

The FIRE AND ICE Trial: What We Know, What We Can Still Learn, and What We Need to Address in the Future

Popis výsledku anglicky

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.

Druh

J_imp - Článek v periodiku v databázi Web of Science

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

30201 - Cardiac and Cardiovascular systems

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

N - Vyzkumna aktivita podporovana z neverejnych zdroju

Rok uplatnění

2018

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

Journal of the American Heart Association

ISSN

2047-9980

e-ISSN

—

Svazek periodika

7

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

24

Stát vydavatele periodika

US - Spojené státy americké

Počet stran výsledku

10

Strana od-do

—

Kód UT WoS článku

000455184800022

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

2-s2.0-85058729390