Sergio Conti1, Rukshen Weerasooriya2, Paul Novak3, Jean Champagne4, Hong Euy Lim1, Laurent Macle5, Yaariv Khaykin1, Alfredo Pantano1, Atul Verma6. 1. Southlake Regional Health Centre, Newmarket, Ontario, Canada. 2. Hollywood Private Hospital, Nedlands, Perth, Australia. 3. Royal Jubilee Hospital, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. 4. Laval University Cardiac and Pulmonary Institute, Quebec, Canada. 5. Montreal Heart Institute, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. 6. Southlake Regional Health Centre, Newmarket, Ontario, Canada. Electronic address: atul.verma@utoronto.ca.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Impact of contact force sensing (CFS) on ablation of persistent atrial fibrillation (PeAF) is unknown. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the TOUCH AF (Therapeutic Outcomes Using Contact force Handling during Ablation of Persistent Atrial Fibrillation) randomized trial was to compare CFS-guided ablation to a CFS-blinded strategy. METHODS:Patients (n = 128) undergoing first-time ablation for persistent AF were randomized to a CFS-guided vs CFS-blinded strategy. In the CFS-guided procedure, operators visualized real-time force data. In the blinded procedure, force data were hidden. Wide antral pulmonary vein isolation plus a roof line were performed. Patients were followed at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months with clinical visit, ECG, and 48-hour Holter monitoring. The primary endpoint was cumulative radiofrequency (RF) time for all procedures. Atrial arrhythmia >30 seconds after 3 months was a recurrence. RESULTS:PeAF was continuous for 26 weeks (interquartile range [IQR] 13-52), and left atrial size was 45 ± 5 mm. Force in the CFS-blinded and CFS-guided arms was 12 g [IQR 6-20] and 14 g [IQR 9-20] (P = .10), respectively. Total RF time did not differ between CFS-guided and CFS-blinded groups (49 ± 14 min vs 50 ± 20 min, respectively; P = .70). Single procedure freedom from atrial arrhythmia was 60% in the CFS-guided arm and 63% in the CFS-blinded arm off drugs. Lesions with gaps were associated with significantly less force (11.4 g [IQR 6-19] vs 13.2 g [IQR 8-20], respectively; P = .0007) and less force-time integral (174 gs [IQR 91-330] vs 210 gs [IQR 113-388], respectively; P <.001). CONCLUSION:CFS-guided ablation resulted in no difference to RF time or 12-month outcome. Lower force/force-time integral was associated with significantly more gaps.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Impact of contact force sensing (CFS) on ablation of persistent atrial fibrillation (PeAF) is unknown. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the TOUCH AF (Therapeutic Outcomes Using Contact force Handling during Ablation of Persistent Atrial Fibrillation) randomized trial was to compare CFS-guided ablation to a CFS-blinded strategy. METHODS:Patients (n = 128) undergoing first-time ablation for persistent AF were randomized to a CFS-guided vs CFS-blinded strategy. In the CFS-guided procedure, operators visualized real-time force data. In the blinded procedure, force data were hidden. Wide antral pulmonary vein isolation plus a roof line were performed. Patients were followed at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months with clinical visit, ECG, and 48-hour Holter monitoring. The primary endpoint was cumulative radiofrequency (RF) time for all procedures. Atrial arrhythmia >30 seconds after 3 months was a recurrence. RESULTS: PeAF was continuous for 26 weeks (interquartile range [IQR] 13-52), and left atrial size was 45 ± 5 mm. Force in the CFS-blinded and CFS-guided arms was 12 g [IQR 6-20] and 14 g [IQR 9-20] (P = .10), respectively. Total RF time did not differ between CFS-guided and CFS-blinded groups (49 ± 14 min vs 50 ± 20 min, respectively; P = .70). Single procedure freedom from atrial arrhythmia was 60% in the CFS-guided arm and 63% in the CFS-blinded arm off drugs. Lesions with gaps were associated with significantly less force (11.4 g [IQR 6-19] vs 13.2 g [IQR 8-20], respectively; P = .0007) and less force-time integral (174 gs [IQR 91-330] vs 210 gs [IQR 113-388], respectively; P <.001). CONCLUSION: CFS-guided ablation resulted in no difference to RF time or 12-month outcome. Lower force/force-time integral was associated with significantly more gaps.
Authors: Konstantinos N Aronis; Ronald D Berger; Hugh Calkins; Jonathan Chrispin; Joseph E Marine; David D Spragg; Susumu Tao; Harikrishna Tandri; Hiroshi Ashikaga Journal: Chaos Date: 2018-06 Impact factor: 3.642
Authors: J C Balt; M N Klaver; B K Mahmoodi; V F van Dijk; M C E F Wijffels; L V A Boersma Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2021-01-17 Impact factor: 1.900
Authors: Ikechukwu Ifedili; Kristina Mouksian; David Jones; Ibrahim El Masri; Mark Heckle; John Jefferies; Yehoshua C Levine Journal: Curr Cardiol Rev Date: 2022
Authors: Allyson L Varley; Omar Kreidieh; Brigham E Godfrey; Carolyn Whitmire; Susan Thorington; Benjamin D'Souza; Steven Kang; Shrinivas Hebsur; Bipin K Ravindran; Edwin Zishiri; Brett Gidney; Matthew B Sellers; David Singh; Tariq Salam; Mark Metzl; Alex Ro; Jose Nazari; Westby G Fisher; Alexandru Costea; Anthony Magnano; Saumil Oza; Gustavo Morales; Anil Rajendra; Joshua Silverstein; Paul C Zei; Jose Osorio Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2021-07-02 Impact factor: 1.900