Ulrich Krause1, David Backhoff2, Sophia Klehs2, Heike E Schneider2, Thomas Paul2. 1. Department of Pediatric Cardiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University Medical Center, Göttingen, Germany. ukrause1@gwdg.de. 2. Department of Pediatric Cardiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University Medical Center, Göttingen, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Monitoring of catheter contact force during catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation has been shown to increase efficacy and safety. However, almost no data exists on the use of this technology in catheter ablation of intraatrial reentrant tachycardia in patients with congenital heart disease. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the impact of contact force monitoring during catheter ablation of intraatrial reentrant tachycardia in those patients. METHODS: Catheter ablation of intraatrial reentrant tachycardia using monitoring of catheter contact force was performed in 28 patients with congenital heart disease (CHD). Thirty-two patients matched according to gender, age, and body weight with congenital heart disease undergoing catheter ablation without contact force monitoring served as control group. Parameters reflecting acute procedural success, long-term efficacy, and safety were compared. RESULTS: Acute procedural success was statistically not different in both groups (contact force 93 % vs. control 84 %, p = 0.3). Likewise the recurrence rate 1 year after ablation as shown by Kaplan-Meier analysis did not differ (contact force 28 % vs. control 37 %, p = 0.63). Major complications were restricted to groin vessel injuries and occurred in 3 out of 60 patients (contact force n = 1; control n = 2). Complications related to excessive catheter contact force were not observed. CONCLUSION: The present study did not show superiority of catheter contact force monitoring during ablation of intraatrial reentrant tachycardia in patients with CHD in terms of efficacy and safety. Higher contact force compared to pulmonary vein isolation might therefore be required to increase the efficacy of catheter ablation of intraatrial reentrant tachycardia in patients with congenital heart disease.
BACKGROUND: Monitoring of catheter contact force during catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation has been shown to increase efficacy and safety. However, almost no data exists on the use of this technology in catheter ablation of intraatrial reentrant tachycardia in patients with congenital heart disease. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the impact of contact force monitoring during catheter ablation of intraatrial reentrant tachycardia in those patients. METHODS: Catheter ablation of intraatrial reentrant tachycardia using monitoring of catheter contact force was performed in 28 patients with congenital heart disease (CHD). Thirty-two patients matched according to gender, age, and body weight with congenital heart disease undergoing catheter ablation without contact force monitoring served as control group. Parameters reflecting acute procedural success, long-term efficacy, and safety were compared. RESULTS: Acute procedural success was statistically not different in both groups (contact force 93 % vs. control 84 %, p = 0.3). Likewise the recurrence rate 1 year after ablation as shown by Kaplan-Meier analysis did not differ (contact force 28 % vs. control 37 %, p = 0.63). Major complications were restricted to groin vessel injuries and occurred in 3 out of 60 patients (contact force n = 1; control n = 2). Complications related to excessive catheter contact force were not observed. CONCLUSION: The present study did not show superiority of catheter contact force monitoring during ablation of intraatrial reentrant tachycardia in patients with CHD in terms of efficacy and safety. Higher contact force compared to pulmonary vein isolation might therefore be required to increase the efficacy of catheter ablation of intraatrial reentrant tachycardia in patients with congenital heart disease.
Authors: Dipen C Shah; Hendrik Lambert; Hiroshi Nakagawa; Arne Langenkamp; Nicolas Aeby; Giovanni Leo Journal: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol Date: 2010-09
Authors: Andrea Natale; Vivek Y Reddy; George Monir; David J Wilber; Bruce D Lindsay; H Thomas McElderry; Charan Kantipudi; Moussa C Mansour; Daniel P Melby; Douglas L Packer; Hiroshi Nakagawa; Baohui Zhang; Robert B Stagg; Lee Ming Boo; Francis E Marchlinski Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2014-08-19 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: R J Kanter; J Papagiannis; M P Carboni; R M Ungerleider; W E Sanders; J M Wharton Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2000-02 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Saurabh Kumar; Joseph B Morton; Geoffrey Lee; Karen Halloran; Peter M Kistler; Jonathan M Kalman Journal: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol Date: 2015-06-16