Literature DB >> 27468731

Radiofrequency Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation: Nonrandomized Comparison of Circular versus Point-by-Point "Smart" Ablation for Achieving Circumferential Pulmonary Vein Isolation and Curing Arrhythmic Symptoms.

Raphael Rosso1, Ehud Chorin1, Yuval Levi1, Ori Rogowski1, Sami Viskin1.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) with radiofrequency (RF) ablation is now standard care for atrial fibrillation (AF). New improvements in PVI techniques include use of catheters that measure contact-force and circular ablation catheters. These techniques have not been compared. METHODS AND
RESULTS: We compared the success rate of circumferential pulmonary vein isolation (CPVI) with: (1) "point by point" RF using an irrigated tip ablation catheter with "smart touch" contact-force; (2) irrigated nMARQ circular ablation catheter in 86 patients with AF. The endpoints of the study were acute and long-term success rate of CPVI. The 2 groups had similar characteristics: Smart Touch group with 50 patients, age 62 ± 8 years, 64% male; nMARQ group with 36 patients, 75% male, age 58.7 ± 10 years. The type of AF was similar in the 2 groups: paroxysmal and persistent in 68% and 32% in the Navistar group versus 64% and 36% in the nMARQ group. Follow-up periods were similar (18.4 months vs. 19 months, P = 0.59). All the pulmonary veins were successfully isolated in both groups. However, PVI could not be achieved with the nMARQ in 2.7% of the pulmonary veins ablated and was completed with a Smart Touch. The long-term success rate was comparable in the 2 groups.
CONCLUSION: The nMARQ and Smart Touch catheters give similar results in PVI of both paroxysmal and persistent AF. The procedural time was shorter with the nMARQ in paroxysmal AF. Need for crossover from nMARQ to Smart Touch occurred in 2.7% of PVs ablated.
© 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Smart Touch catheter; atrial fibrillation; catheter ablation; circular catheter; circular pulmonary vein isolation; irrigated catheter; nMARQ catheter

Year:  2016        PMID: 27468731     DOI: 10.1111/jce.13058

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol        ISSN: 1045-3873


  7 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  Reconstruction of the left atrium for atrial fibrillation ablation using the machine learning CARTO 3 m-FAM software.

Authors:  Arie Lorin Schwartz; Ehud Chorin; Tomer Mann; Yuval Levi M; Aviram Hochstadt; Gilad Margolis; Sami Viskin; Shmuel Banai; Raphael Rosso
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2021-08-12       Impact factor: 1.900

Review 3.  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

4.  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

5.  Direct results of a prospective randomized study comparing ablation with the nMARQ catheter and the PVAC catheter used with and without a 3D system (MAPER 3D Study).

Authors:  Edward Koźluk; Agnieszka Piątkowska; Dariusz Rodkiewicz; Michał Peller; Janusz Kochanowski; Grzegorz Opolski
Journal:  Arch Med Sci       Date:  2017-05-30       Impact factor: 3.318

6.  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

7.  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

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.