PURPOSE: Complete pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) is the best documented target for catheter ablation, and different technologies have shown comparable outcomes. The multielectrode phased-RF/duty cycled (PhRF/DC) pulmonary vein ablation catheter (PVAC) and its second generation (PVAC-GOLD) have shown promising clinical results in single and multicenter experiences. Our aim is to assess and compare the safety and efficacy in the real clinical practice among two generations of circular PhRF/DC catheters by performing PVI in patients suffering from recurrent atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS: Eighty-four AF patients treated with PVAC and 64 with PVAC-GOLD were prospectively followed in five Italian cardiology centers in the mainframe of the 1STOP-ClinicalService project. RESULTS: Fluoroscopic and total procedure time were significantly different in the two groups. In particular, in the PVAC-GOLD group, the mean fluoroscopic time was 22.8 ± 12.7 min vs 31.6 ± 18.9 in the PVAC group (p = 0.002), and the mean total procedure duration was 117.6 ± 36.0 vs 147.4 ± 40.6, in the PVAC-GOLD group and the PVAC group, respectively (p = 0.001). Only two out of 148 patients reported a peri-procedural complication. Over 20.9 ± 12.0 months of follow-up, AF recurrence occurred in 58 patients. Kaplan-Meier freedom from AF recurrence did not differ between the two groups (64.1 ± 10% in the PVAC group vs 68.2 ± 9% in the PVAC-GOLD group at 1 year, p = ns). CONCLUSIONS: In our multicenter analysis, AF ablation using two generations of circular PhRF/DC catheters is safe and effective. No difference was observed in terms of safety and efficacy of the AF ablation between the two catheters, with the mean procedural time being shorter in the PVAC-GOLD group.
PURPOSE: Complete pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) is the best documented target for catheter ablation, and different technologies have shown comparable outcomes. The multielectrode phased-RF/duty cycled (PhRF/DC) pulmonary vein ablation catheter (PVAC) and its second generation (PVAC-GOLD) have shown promising clinical results in single and multicenter experiences. Our aim is to assess and compare the safety and efficacy in the real clinical practice among two generations of circular PhRF/DC catheters by performing PVI in patients suffering from recurrent atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS: Eighty-four AFpatients treated with PVAC and 64 with PVAC-GOLD were prospectively followed in five Italian cardiology centers in the mainframe of the 1STOP-ClinicalService project. RESULTS: Fluoroscopic and total procedure time were significantly different in the two groups. In particular, in the PVAC-GOLD group, the mean fluoroscopic time was 22.8 ± 12.7 min vs 31.6 ± 18.9 in the PVAC group (p = 0.002), and the mean total procedure duration was 117.6 ± 36.0 vs 147.4 ± 40.6, in the PVAC-GOLD group and the PVAC group, respectively (p = 0.001). Only two out of 148 patients reported a peri-procedural complication. Over 20.9 ± 12.0 months of follow-up, AF recurrence occurred in 58 patients. Kaplan-Meier freedom from AF recurrence did not differ between the two groups (64.1 ± 10% in the PVAC group vs 68.2 ± 9% in the PVAC-GOLD group at 1 year, p = ns). CONCLUSIONS: In our multicenter analysis, AF ablation using two generations of circular PhRF/DC catheters is safe and effective. No difference was observed in terms of safety and efficacy of the AF ablation between the two catheters, with the mean procedural time being shorter in the PVAC-GOLD group.
Authors: Pim Gal; Alissa E S M Aarntzen; Jaap Jan J Smit; Ahmet Adiyaman; Anand R Ramdat Misier; Peter Paul H M Delnoy; Arif Elvan Journal: Int J Cardiol Date: 2014-08-13 Impact factor: 4.164
Authors: Simon Pecha; Muhammet Ali Aydin; Teymour Ahmadzade; Friederike Hartel; Boris Hoffmann; Daniel Steven; Stephan Willems; Hermann Reichenspurner; Florian Mathias Wagner Journal: Heart Vessels Date: 2015-08-29 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: Gustavo R Goldenberg; Daniel Burd; Piotr Lodzinski; Giuseppe Stabile; Jacob A Udell; David Newman; Mohammed Shurrab; Eugene Crystal Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2016-06-29 Impact factor: 1.900
Authors: Thomas Deneke; Dong-In Shin; Osman Balta; Kathrin Bünz; Frank Fassbender; Andreas Mügge; Helge Anders; Marc Horlitz; Markus Päsler; Sinthu Karthikapallil; Thomas Arentz; Dieter Beyer; Martin Bansmann Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2011-07-02 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Christian von Bary; Stefan Weber; Christian Dornia; Christoph Eissnert; Claudia Fellner; Philipp Latzin; Sabine Fredersdorf; Stefan Stadler; Okka W Hamer Journal: Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol Date: 2011-08-13
Authors: David E Haines; Mark T Stewart; Sarah Dahlberg; Noah D Barka; Cathy Condie; Gary R Fiedler; Nicole A Kirchhof; Franck Halimi; Thomas Deneke Journal: Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol Date: 2013-02-07
Authors: Philipp Seidl; Frank Steinborn; Lisa Costello-Boerrigter; Ralf Surber; Paul C Schulze; Christine Böttcher; Andreas Sommermeier; Violeta Mattea; Roland Simeoni; Frank Michael Malur; Harald Lapp; Anja Schade Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2020-05-15 Impact factor: 1.900
Authors: M N Klaver; L I S Wintgens; M C E F Wijffels; J C Balt; V F van Dijk; A Alipour; S M Chaldoupi; R Derksen; L V A Boersma Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2020-04-06 Impact factor: 1.900