PURPOSE: Use of online contact force (CF) measurement during circumferential pulmonary vein (PV) isolation (CPVI) for atrial fibrillation (AF) has demonstrated improvements in procedural parameters and mid-term clinical outcome. However, it is unknown if experience gained with CF measuring catheters improves the efficacy of subsequent CPVI procedures performed without CF measurement. METHODS: This prospective trial compared procedural results of CPVI performed without a CF measuring catheter to a control group performed with a CF measuring catheter, by an operator with prior experience with CF technology.. RESULTS: Thirty-six eligible paroxysmal (n = 27) or persistent (n = 9) AF patients were consecutively enrolled. Twelve patients underwent CPVI with the non-CF catheter (CF- group) in a recall period and 24 with the CF catheter (CF+ group). After the first circumferential lesion set, the number of PV pairs requiring additional touch-up lesions to achieve electrical isolation was significantly less in the CF+ group (2 of 48 (4.2 %) vs. 7 of 24 (29.2 %) in the CF+ and CF- groups, respectively, p = 0.005). The procedure time was significantly lower in the CF+ group (117.9 ± 23.3 vs. 134.1 ± 25.3 min, p = 0.033). Radiofrequency (RF) and fluoroscopy time did not differ between groups (31.5 ± 7.1 vs. 31.8 ± 7.0 min and 11.8 ± 5.6 vs. 11.0 ± 5.8 min in the CF+ and the CF- group, respectively) CONCLUSIONS: With the use of online CF measurement, PV isolation is more frequently complete following the first circumferential lesion set. A previous learning period with direct CF feedback is not a substitute for real-time direct CF measurement to maintain this advantage.
PURPOSE: Use of online contact force (CF) measurement during circumferential pulmonary vein (PV) isolation (CPVI) for atrial fibrillation (AF) has demonstrated improvements in procedural parameters and mid-term clinical outcome. However, it is unknown if experience gained with CF measuring catheters improves the efficacy of subsequent CPVI procedures performed without CF measurement. METHODS: This prospective trial compared procedural results of CPVI performed without a CF measuring catheter to a control group performed with a CF measuring catheter, by an operator with prior experience with CF technology.. RESULTS: Thirty-six eligible paroxysmal (n = 27) or persistent (n = 9) AFpatients were consecutively enrolled. Twelve patients underwent CPVI with the non-CF catheter (CF- group) in a recall period and 24 with the CF catheter (CF+ group). After the first circumferential lesion set, the number of PV pairs requiring additional touch-up lesions to achieve electrical isolation was significantly less in the CF+ group (2 of 48 (4.2 %) vs. 7 of 24 (29.2 %) in the CF+ and CF- groups, respectively, p = 0.005). The procedure time was significantly lower in the CF+ group (117.9 ± 23.3 vs. 134.1 ± 25.3 min, p = 0.033). Radiofrequency (RF) and fluoroscopy time did not differ between groups (31.5 ± 7.1 vs. 31.8 ± 7.0 min and 11.8 ± 5.6 vs. 11.0 ± 5.8 min in the CF+ and the CF- group, respectively) CONCLUSIONS: With the use of online CF measurement, PV isolation is more frequently complete following the first circumferential lesion set. A previous learning period with direct CF feedback is not a substitute for real-time direct CF measurement to maintain this advantage.
Authors: X Zheng; G P Walcott; J A Hall; D L Rollins; W M Smith; G N Kay; R E Ideker Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2000-12 Impact factor: 1.900
Authors: Jason G Andrade; George Monir; Scott J Pollak; Paul Khairy; Marc Dubuc; Denis Roy; Mario Talajic; Marc Deyell; Léna Rivard; Bernard Thibault; Peter G Guerra; Stanley Nattel; Laurent Macle Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2014-07-25 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Petr Neuzil; Vivek Y Reddy; Josef Kautzner; Jan Petru; Dan Wichterle; Dipen Shah; Hendrik Lambert; Aude Yulzari; Erik Wissner; Karl-Heinz Kuck Journal: Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol Date: 2013-03-20
Authors: S A Strickberger; V R Vorperian; K C Man; B D Williamson; S J Kalbfleisch; C Hasse; F Morady; J J Langberg Journal: Am Heart J Date: 1994-08 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Vivek Y Reddy; Dipen Shah; Josef Kautzner; Boris Schmidt; Nadir Saoudi; Claudia Herrera; Pierre Jaïs; Gerhard Hindricks; Petr Peichl; Aude Yulzari; Hendrik Lambert; Petr Neuzil; Andrea Natale; Karl-Heinz Kuck Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2012-07-20 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Chan-Il Park; Heiko Lehrmann; Cornelius Keyl; Reinhold Weber; Jochen Schiebeling; Juergen Allgeier; Patrick Schurr; Ashok Shah; Franz-Josef Neumann; Thomas Arentz; Amir S Jadidi Journal: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol Date: 2014-04-02
Authors: Shouvik Haldar; Julian W E Jarman; Sandeep Panikker; David G Jones; Tushar Salukhe; Dhiraj Gupta; Gareth Wynn; Wajid Hussain; Vias Markides; Tom Wong Journal: Int J Cardiol Date: 2012-12-04 Impact factor: 4.164
Authors: N Deubner; H Greiss; E Akkaya; A Berkowitsch; S Zaltsberg; C W Hamm; M Kuniss; T Neumann Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2016-03-31 Impact factor: 1.900