. 2024 Apr 8;25(4):140. doi: 10.31083/j.rcm2504140

Table 2.

Principal trials comparing head-to-head the different energy sources available for AF ablation.

Trial name	Trial type	Energy compared	N. patients	Results
Kuck et al. [60] (FIRE AND ICE)	Multicenter	Cryoballon vs RF (power control)	762	Efficacy: CBA non inferior to RF.
Kuck et al. [60] (FIRE AND ICE)	Randomized	Cryoballon vs RF (power control)	(378:384)	Safety: no difference.
	(non-inferiority design)		PAF only
Andrade et al. [61] (CIRCA DOSE)	Multicenter	4-min or 2-min Cryoballon vs RF (contact force)	346	No difference in 1 year efficacy (time to first recurrence and burden reduction assessed by ILR). Less fluoroscopy time for RF.
Andrade et al. [61] (CIRCA DOSE)	Randomized	4-min or 2-min Cryoballon vs RF (contact force)	(115:116:115)
			PAF only
Reddy et al. [77] (ADVENT)	Multicenter	PFA vs thermal ablation (RF or CBA)	607	PFA non inferior to thermal ablation in regard of a composite endpoint of efficacy and device- and procedure-related seriuos complications.
Reddy et al. [77] (ADVENT)	Randomized	PFA vs thermal ablation (RF or CBA)	(305:302)
	(non-inferiority design)		PAF only
Schiavone et al. [81]	Prospective two-arm nonrandomized propensity-matched observational	Laser ballon vs CBA	110	No difference in arrhythmia autcomes assessed by ILR.
			(55:55)	No difference in arrhythmia autcomes assessed by ILR.
			PAF 57.3%	No difference in procedure or fluoroscopy time.

RF, radiofrequency; CBA, cryoballon; PAF, paroxysmal atrial fibrillation; ILR, implantable loop recorder; AF, atrial fibrillation.