BACKGROUND: Poor catheter-to-myocardial contact can lead to ineffective ablation lesions and suboptimal outcome. Contact force (CF) sensing catheters in ventricular tachyarrhythmia (VT) ablations have not been studied for their long-term efficacy. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare CF ablation to manual ablation (MAN) and remote magnetic navigation (RMN) ablation for safety and efficacy in acute and long-term outcome. METHODS: A total of 239 consecutive patients who underwent VT ablation with the use of MAN, CF, or RMN catheters were included in this single-center cohort study from January 2007 until March 2014. The primary endpoints were procedural success, acute major complications, and VT recurrences at follow-up. The median follow-up period was 25 months. RESULTS: Acute success was achieved in 182 out of 239 procedures (76%). Acute success in manual ablation, CF ablation and RMN ablation was 71%, 71%, and 86%, respectively (P = 0.03). Major complications occurred in 3.3% and there were less major complications (P = 0.04) in the RMN group. After an initial successful procedure, 66 of 182 patients (36%) had a recurrence during follow-up. This was not significantly different between groups. Using an intention-to-treat analysis, 124 patients (52%) had a recurrence. The recurrence rate was lowest in the RMN group. CONCLUSION: The use of CF sensing catheters did not improve procedural outcome or safety profile in comparison to non-CF sensing ablation in this observational study of ventricular arrhythmia ablations.
BACKGROUND: Poor catheter-to-myocardial contact can lead to ineffective ablation lesions and suboptimal outcome. Contact force (CF) sensing catheters in ventricular tachyarrhythmia (VT) ablations have not been studied for their long-term efficacy. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare CF ablation to manual ablation (MAN) and remote magnetic navigation (RMN) ablation for safety and efficacy in acute and long-term outcome. METHODS: A total of 239 consecutive patients who underwent VT ablation with the use of MAN, CF, or RMN catheters were included in this single-center cohort study from January 2007 until March 2014. The primary endpoints were procedural success, acute major complications, and VT recurrences at follow-up. The median follow-up period was 25 months. RESULTS: Acute success was achieved in 182 out of 239 procedures (76%). Acute success in manual ablation, CF ablation and RMN ablation was 71%, 71%, and 86%, respectively (P = 0.03). Major complications occurred in 3.3% and there were less major complications (P = 0.04) in the RMN group. After an initial successful procedure, 66 of 182 patients (36%) had a recurrence during follow-up. This was not significantly different between groups. Using an intention-to-treat analysis, 124 patients (52%) had a recurrence. The recurrence rate was lowest in the RMN group. CONCLUSION: The use of CF sensing catheters did not improve procedural outcome or safety profile in comparison to non-CF sensing ablation in this observational study of ventricular arrhythmia ablations.
Authors: Edmond M Cronin; Frank M Bogun; Philippe Maury; Petr Peichl; Minglong Chen; Narayanan Namboodiri; Luis Aguinaga; Luiz Roberto Leite; Sana M Al-Khatib; Elad Anter; Antonio Berruezo; David J Callans; Mina K Chung; Phillip Cuculich; Andre d'Avila; Barbara J Deal; Paolo Della Bella; Thomas Deneke; Timm-Michael Dickfeld; Claudio Hadid; Haris M Haqqani; G Neal Kay; Rakesh Latchamsetty; Francis Marchlinski; John M Miller; Akihiko Nogami; Akash R Patel; Rajeev Kumar Pathak; Luis C Saenz Morales; Pasquale Santangeli; John L Sapp; Andrea Sarkozy; Kyoko Soejima; William G Stevenson; Usha B Tedrow; Wendy S Tzou; Niraj Varma; Katja Zeppenfeld Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2020-10 Impact factor: 1.900
Authors: Luigi Di Biase; Roderick Tung; Tamás Szili-Torok; J David Burkhardt; Peter Weiss; Rene Tavernier; Adam E Berman; Erik Wissner; William Spear; Xu Chen; Petr Neužil; Jan Skoda; Dhanunjaya Lakkireddy; Bruno Schwagten; Ken Lock; Andrea Natale Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2017-01-07 Impact factor: 1.900
Authors: Edmond M Cronin; Frank M Bogun; Philippe Maury; Petr Peichl; Minglong Chen; Narayanan Namboodiri; Luis Aguinaga; Luiz Roberto Leite; Sana M Al-Khatib; Elad Anter; Antonio Berruezo; David J Callans; Mina K Chung; Phillip Cuculich; Andre d'Avila; Barbara J Deal; Paolo Della Bella; Thomas Deneke; Timm-Michael Dickfeld; Claudio Hadid; Haris M Haqqani; G Neal Kay; Rakesh Latchamsetty; Francis Marchlinski; John M Miller; Akihiko Nogami; Akash R Patel; Rajeev Kumar Pathak; Luis C Sáenz Morales; Pasquale Santangeli; John L Sapp; Andrea Sarkozy; Kyoko Soejima; William G Stevenson; Usha B Tedrow; Wendy S Tzou; Niraj Varma; Katja Zeppenfeld Journal: Europace Date: 2019-08-01 Impact factor: 5.214
Authors: Anna M E Noten; Nawin L Ramdat Misier; Janneke A E Kammeraad; Sip Wijchers; Ingrid M Van Beynum; Michiel Dalinghaus; Thomas B Krasemann; Sing-Chien Yap; Natasja M S de Groot; Tamas Szili-Torok Journal: Pediatr Cardiol Date: 2022-04-29 Impact factor: 1.838
Authors: Ahmed I Elbatran; Anthony Li; Mark M Gallagher; Riyaz Kaba; Mark Norman; Elijah R Behr; Manav Sohal; Abhay Bajpai; Zia Zuberi; Magdi M Saba Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2020-05-21 Impact factor: 1.900
Authors: Lennart J de Vries; Mihran Martirosyan; Ron T van Domburg; Sip A Wijchers; Tamas Géczy; Tamas Szili-Torok Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2018-01-05 Impact factor: 1.900