Literature DB >> 25220575

Comparison of robotic and manual persistent AF ablation using catheter contact force sensing: an international multicenter registry study.

Waqas Ullah1, Ross J Hunter, Shouvik Haldar, Ailsa McLean, Mehul Dhinoja, Simon Sporton, Mark J Earley, Faizel Lorgat, Tom Wong, Richard J Schilling.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Catheter-based contact force sensing (CFS) technology gives detailed information regarding contact between the catheter tip and myocardium. This may result in more effective ablation procedures. The primary objective of this study was comparison of remote robotic navigation (RRN) and Manual CFS ablation. The secondary objective was to compare CFS with non-CFS ablation for both navigation modes.
METHODS: Prospective registries of consecutive cases undergoing their first ablation for persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) from six hospitals in the United Kingdom and South Africa were analyzed: 50 Manual/CFS and 50 RRN/CFS cases were included. Historical control non-CFS ablation patients were matched by propensity score, giving a total 200 patient cohort.
RESULTS: RRN/CFS was associated with improved single procedure 1-year success rates (64% vs 36%, P = 0.01) and shorter fluoroscopy times (41% reduction, P < 0.0005) than Manual/CFS ablation, without any difference in procedure times (P = 0.8). The mean contact force was higher in RRN/CFS than Manual/CFS cases (16 [15-18 g] vs 13 [12-15 g], respectively, P = 0.003). Compared with non-CFS historical controls, CFS cases had higher 1-year success rates for RRN (64% vs 36%, P = 0.01), but not Manual ablation (36% vs 38%, P = 1). Procedure times were reduced for CFS cases (20%, P < 0.005 both navigation modes), as were fluoroscopy times (Manual: 43%, RRN 83%, P < 0.005 for both). There were no differences in rates of major or minor complications for either comparison (P > 0.5).
CONCLUSIONS: A combination of RRN and CFS is associated with improved success rates at 1 year and fluoroscopy times for persistent AF ablation, compared with Manual ablation and non-CFS RRN ablation. ©2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  atrial fibrillation; catheter ablation; contact force sensing; remote robotic navigation

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25220575     DOI: 10.1111/pace.12501

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pacing Clin Electrophysiol        ISSN: 0147-8389            Impact factor:   1.976


  9 in total

Review 1.  Contact Force and Atrial Fibrillation Ablation.

Authors:  W Ullah; R J Schilling; T Wong
Journal:  J Atr Fibrillation       Date:  2016-02-29

2.  Analysis of catheter contact force during atrial fibrillation ablation using the robotic navigation system: results from a randomized study.

Authors:  Antonio Dello Russo; Gaetano Fassini; Sergio Conti; Michela Casella; Antonio Di Monaco; Eleonora Russo; Stefania Riva; Massimo Moltrasio; Fabrizio Tundo; Giuseppe De Martino; G Joseph Gallinghouse; Luigi Di Biase; Andrea Natale; Claudio Tondo
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2016-01-21       Impact factor: 1.900

Review 3.  Impact of Contact Force Technology on Atrial Fibrillation Ablation: A Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Mohammed Shurrab; Luigi Di Biase; David F Briceno; Anna Kaoutskaia; Saleem Haj-Yahia; David Newman; Ilan Lashevsky; Hiroshi Nakagawa; Eugene Crystal
Journal:  J Am Heart Assoc       Date:  2015-09-21       Impact factor: 5.501

4.  First evidence of clinical benefit of robotically driven catheter ablation or an outlayer?

Authors:  Jesús Almendral
Journal:  Pacing Clin Electrophysiol       Date:  2014-09-19       Impact factor: 1.976

5.  CathROB: A Highly Compact and Versatile Remote Catheter Navigation System.

Authors:  Laura Cercenelli; Barbara Bortolani; Emanuela Marcelli
Journal:  Appl Bionics Biomech       Date:  2017-05-25       Impact factor: 1.781

6.  Impact of contact force technology on reducing the recurrence and major complications of atrial fibrillation ablation: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Xianhui Zhou; Wenkui Lv; Wenhui Zhang; Yuanzheng Ye; Yaodong Li; Qina Zhou; Qiang Xing; Jianghua Zhang; Yanmei Lu; Ling Zhang; Hongli Wang; Wen Qin; Baopeng Tang
Journal:  Anatol J Cardiol       Date:  2017-02       Impact factor: 1.596

7.  Atrial fibrillation ablation with a spring sensor-irrigated contact force-sensing catheter compared with other ablation catheters: systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Laurent Macle; Diana Frame; Larry M Gache; George Monir; Scott J Pollak; Lee Ming Boo
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-06-11       Impact factor: 2.692

8.  Contact-Force-Sensing-Based Radiofrequency Catheter Ablation in Paroxysmal Supraventricular Tachycardias (COBRA-PATH): a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Tamas Geczy; Nawin L Ramdat Misier; Tamas Szili-Torok
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2020-04-09       Impact factor: 2.279

9.  Cryoballoon vs. radiofrequency catheter ablation: insights from NOrwegian randomized study of PERSistent Atrial Fibrillation (NO-PERSAF study).

Authors:  Li-Bin Shi; Ole Rossvoll; Pål Tande; Peter Schuster; Eivind Solheim; Jian Chen
Journal:  Europace       Date:  2022-02-02       Impact factor: 5.214

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.