BACKGROUND: The recurrence rates of atrial fibrillation (Af) after ablation are still high, and repeat procedures are required in these patients. The main reason for Af recurrence is the recovery of the conduction between the pulmonary veins and left atrium. The importance of catheter stability during the pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) is not well studied. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the contact force (CF), stable ablation time, and power during conduction blocking lesion formation for PVI. METHODS: Thirty-two consecutive drug-refractory Af patients who underwent an initial PVI using CARTO 3 and Visitag were included. The CF, ablation time, force time integral (FTI), and ablation power were recorded by Visitag. Residual conduction gap points requiring touch-up ablation after an encircling linear ablation (R point), spontaneous reconnection points (S point), and dormant conduction points (D point) were considered as non-conduction blocking lesion points. Each ablation parameter for the non-conduction blocking lesion points was compared with the other lesion points. RESULTS: Twenty-one points in 16 patients were considered non-conduction blocking lesions. Ten were R, eight were S, and three were D points. The CF, ablation time, FTI, and power at the non-conduction blocking lesion points and other points were 12.0 g (7.0-21.5) and 12.0 g (9.0-16.0) (P = 0.9), 7.7 s (5.6-10.1) and 12.5 s (9.4-16.8) (P < 0.05), 103.0 g*s (62.0-174.5) and 149.0 g*s (104.0-213.0) (P < 0.05), and 30.0 W (22.5-30.0) and 30.0 W (30.0-30.0) (P = 0.06), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Shorter ablation time recorded in Visitag lead to non-conduction blocking lesion.
BACKGROUND: The recurrence rates of atrial fibrillation (Af) after ablation are still high, and repeat procedures are required in these patients. The main reason for Af recurrence is the recovery of the conduction between the pulmonary veins and left atrium. The importance of catheter stability during the pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) is not well studied. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the contact force (CF), stable ablation time, and power during conduction blocking lesion formation for PVI. METHODS: Thirty-two consecutive drug-refractory Af patients who underwent an initial PVI using CARTO 3 and Visitag were included. The CF, ablation time, force time integral (FTI), and ablation power were recorded by Visitag. Residual conduction gap points requiring touch-up ablation after an encircling linear ablation (R point), spontaneous reconnection points (S point), and dormant conduction points (D point) were considered as non-conduction blocking lesion points. Each ablation parameter for the non-conduction blocking lesion points was compared with the other lesion points. RESULTS: Twenty-one points in 16 patients were considered non-conduction blocking lesions. Ten were R, eight were S, and three were D points. The CF, ablation time, FTI, and power at the non-conduction blocking lesion points and other points were 12.0 g (7.0-21.5) and 12.0 g (9.0-16.0) (P = 0.9), 7.7 s (5.6-10.1) and 12.5 s (9.4-16.8) (P < 0.05), 103.0 g*s (62.0-174.5) and 149.0 g*s (104.0-213.0) (P < 0.05), and 30.0 W (22.5-30.0) and 30.0 W (30.0-30.0) (P = 0.06), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Shorter ablation time recorded in Visitag lead to non-conduction blocking lesion.
Authors: A John Camm; Gregory Y H Lip; Raffaele De Caterina; Irene Savelieva; Dan Atar; Stefan H Hohnloser; Gerhard Hindricks; Paulus Kirchhof Journal: Europace Date: 2012-08-24 Impact factor: 5.214
Authors: Marcin Kowalski; Margaret M Grimes; Francisco J Perez; David N Kenigsberg; Jayanthi Koneru; Vigneshwar Kasirajan; Mark A Wood; Kenneth A Ellenbogen Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2012-03-06 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Hugh Calkins; Karl Heinz Kuck; Riccardo Cappato; Josep Brugada; A John Camm; Shih-Ann Chen; Harry J G Crijns; Ralph J Damiano; D Wyn Davies; John DiMarco; James Edgerton; Kenneth Ellenbogen; Michael D Ezekowitz; David E Haines; Michel Haissaguerre; Gerhard Hindricks; Yoshito Iesaka; Warren Jackman; Jose Jalife; Pierre Jais; Jonathan Kalman; David Keane; Young-Hoon Kim; Paulus Kirchhof; George Klein; Hans Kottkamp; Koichiro Kumagai; Bruce D Lindsay; Moussa Mansour; Francis E Marchlinski; Patrick M McCarthy; J Lluis Mont; Fred Morady; Koonlawee Nademanee; Hiroshi Nakagawa; Andrea Natale; Stanley Nattel; Douglas L Packer; Carlo Pappone; Eric Prystowsky; Antonio Raviele; Vivek Reddy; Jeremy N Ruskin; Richard J Shemin; Hsuan-Ming Tsao; David Wilber Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 1.900
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: Craig T January; L Samuel Wann; Joseph S Alpert; Hugh Calkins; Joaquin E Cigarroa; Joseph C Cleveland; Jamie B Conti; Patrick T Ellinor; Michael D Ezekowitz; Michael E Field; Katherine T Murray; Ralph L Sacco; William G Stevenson; Patrick J Tchou; Cynthia M Tracy; Clyde W Yancy Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2014-03-28 Impact factor: 24.094
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