Literature DB >> 26759125

One-year clinical outcome after ablation with a novel multipolar irrigated ablation catheter for treatment of atrial fibrillation: potential implications for clinical use.

Reza Wakili1, Johannes Siebermair2, Stephanie Fichtner2, Moritz F Sinner2, Eva Klocker2, Lucia Olesch2, Jan N Hilberath3, Samira Sarai2, Sebastian Clauss4, Stefan Sattler2, Stefan Kääb5, Heidi L Estner2.   

Abstract

AIMS: Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) is an established therapy for atrial fibrillation (AF). However, PVI remains a time-consuming procedure. A novel multipolar irrigated radiofrequency (RF) ablation catheter (nMARQ™) is aiming to improve PVI. We investigated the influence on procedural parameters and assessed clinical outcomes after PVI using this novel catheter. METHODS AND
RESULTS: Fifty-eight consecutive patients with paroxysmal AF were equally allocated (n = 29/group) to PVI treatment with (i) the novel multipolar ablation catheter (nMARQ™) and (ii) a standard single-tip ablation catheter (SAC). Study endpoints included procedure time, fluoroscopy time, radiation dose, RF time, number of energy applications, and clinical outcome defined as freedom from AF after a single procedure. Successful PVI was confirmed by a separate circular, multipolar mapping catheter in all patients treated with the nMARQ™. Pulmonary vein isolation was achieved in 100% in the SAC group. In the nMARQ™ group, PVI was suggested in all patients. However, confirmatory mapping revealed persistent pulmonary vein (PV) conduction in 19 out of 29 nMARQ™ patients. These patients underwent further ablation, which still failed to achieve PVI in 5 of the 29 nMARQ™ patients, mainly due to significant temperature rise in the oesophagus and device-related limitations reaching the right inferior PV. Mean fluoroscopy time (31 ± 12 vs. 23 ± 10 min, P < 0.05) and (132 ± 37 vs. 109 ± 30 min, P < 0.05) were longer in nMARQ™ vs. SAC patients. Radiofrequency time was shorter in nMARQ™ vs. SAC group (21 ± 9 vs. 35 ± 12 min, P < 0.001). Radiation dose and the number of energy applications did not differ between both groups. Clinical outcome analysis revealed no significant differences (nMARQ™: 72 vs. SAC: 72%) after a mean follow-up of 373 ± 278 days.
CONCLUSION: The use of the nMARQ™ catheter is associated with important device-related limitations to achieve successful PVI. However, clinical outcomes were equivalent in nMARQ™- and SAC-treated patients. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.
© The Author 2016. For permissions please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Ablation; Arrhythmia; Atrial fibrillation; Pulmonary vein isolation; nMARQ catheter

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26759125     DOI: 10.1093/europace/euv349

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Europace        ISSN: 1099-5129            Impact factor:   5.214


  9 in total

1.  A 5-year clinical follow-up after duty-cycled phased RF ablation of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation.

Authors:  Antoine Lepillier; Xavier Copie; Gilles Lascault; Olivier Paziaud; Olivier Piot
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2016-11-22       Impact factor: 1.900

Review 2.  Pulmonary Vein Isolation with the Multipolar nMARQ™ Ablation Catheter: Efficacy And Safety In Acute And Long-Term Follow Up.

Authors:  Johannes Siebermair; Michelle Silver; Reza Wakili
Journal:  J Atr Fibrillation       Date:  2017-04-30

Review 3.  Comparison of the Efficacy of PVAC® and nMARQ for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation.

Authors:  Avishag Laish-Farkash; Mahmoud Suleiman
Journal:  J Atr Fibrillation       Date:  2017-04-30

Review 4.  Catheter Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation: A Review of the Current Status and Future Directions.

Authors:  Daniel P Melby
Journal:  J Innov Card Rhythm Manag       Date:  2017-11-15

5.  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

6.  High-density Mapping Guided Pulmonary Vein Isolation for Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation - Two-year clinical outcome of a single center experience.

Authors:  J Siebermair; B Neumann; F Risch; L Riesinger; N Vonderlin; M Koehler; K Lackermaier; S Fichtner; K Rizas; S M Sattler; M F Sinner; S Kääb; H L Estner; R Wakili
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-06-20       Impact factor: 4.379

7.  Alteration of Endothelin 1, MCP-1 and Chromogranin A in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing pulmonary vein isolation.

Authors:  K Lackermair; S Clauss; T Voigt; I Klier; C Summo; B Hildebrand; T Nickel; H L Estner; S Kääb; R Wakili; U Wilbert-Lampen
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-09-08       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Pulmonary vein isolation using multi-electrode radiofrequency vs conventional point-by-point radiofrequency ablation: A meta-analysis of randomized and non-randomized studies.

Authors:  Dursun Aras; Serkan Topaloglu; Serkan Cay; Ozcan Ozeke; Firat Ozcan; Goksel Cagirci
Journal:  Indian Pacing Electrophysiol J       Date:  2017-02-20

9.  Atrial Fibrillation Recurrence and Peri-Procedural Complication Rates in nMARQ vs. Conventional Ablation Techniques: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Ka H C Li; Mei Dong; Mengqi Gong; George Bazoukis; Ishan Lakhani; Yan Y Ting; Sunny H Wong; Guangping Li; William K K Wu; Vassilios S Vassiliou; Martin C S Wong; Konstantinos Letsas; Yimei Du; Victoria Laxton; Bryan P Yan; Yat S Chan; Yunlong Xia; Tong Liu; Gary Tse
Journal:  Front Physiol       Date:  2018-05-22       Impact factor: 4.566

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.