Kurt S Hoffmayer1, Felix Krainski2, Sanjay Shah2, Jessica Hunter2, Maylene Alegre2, Jonathan C Hsu2, Gregory K Feld2. 1. Division of Cardiology, Cardiac Electrophysiology Program, UCSD Health System, University of California, San Diego, 9452 Medical Center Dr., MC7411, 3rd Floor, Room 3E-313, La Jolla, CA, 92037, USA. khoffmayer@ucsd.edu. 2. Division of Cardiology, Cardiac Electrophysiology Program, UCSD Health System, University of California, San Diego, 9452 Medical Center Dr., MC7411, 3rd Floor, Room 3E-313, La Jolla, CA, 92037, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:Radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA) of the cavo-tricuspid isthmus (CTI) is a common treatment for atrial flutter (AFL). However, achieving bi-directional CTI conduction block may be difficult, partly due to catheter instability. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of the Amigo® Remote Catheter System (RCS) compared to manual catheter manipulation, during CTI ablation for AFL. METHODS:Fifty patients (pts) were prospectively randomized to robotically (25 pts) versus manually (25 pts) controlled catheter manipulation during CTI ablation, using a force-contact sensing, irrigated ablation catheter. The primary outcome was recurrence of CTI conduction after a 30-min waiting period. Secondary outcomes included total ablation, procedure, and fluoroscopy times, contact force measurement, and catheter stability. RESULTS:Recurrence of CTI conduction 30 min after ablation was less with robotically (0/25) versus manually (6/25) controlled ablation (p = 0.023). Total ablation and procedure times to achieve persistent CTI block (6.7 ± 3 vs. 7.4 ± 2.5 min and 14.9 ± 7.5 vs. 15.2 ± 7 min, respectively) were not significantly different (p = 0.35 and p = 0.91, respectively). There was a non-significant trend toward a greater force time integral (FTI in gm/s) with robotically versus manually controlled CTI ablation (571 ± 278 vs. 471 ± 179, p = 0.13). Fluoroscopy time was longer with robotically versus manually controlled CTI ablation (6.8 ± 4.4 min vs. 3.8 ± 2.3 min, p = 0.0027). There were no complications in either group. CONCLUSION:Robotically controlled CTI ablation resulted in fewer acute recurrences of CTI conduction compared to manually controlled CTI ablation, and a trend toward higher FTI. The longer fluoroscopy time during robotically controlled ablation was likely due to a steep learning curve. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02467179.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA) of the cavo-tricuspid isthmus (CTI) is a common treatment for atrial flutter (AFL). However, achieving bi-directional CTI conduction block may be difficult, partly due to catheter instability. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of the Amigo® Remote Catheter System (RCS) compared to manual catheter manipulation, during CTI ablation for AFL. METHODS: Fifty patients (pts) were prospectively randomized to robotically (25 pts) versus manually (25 pts) controlled catheter manipulation during CTI ablation, using a force-contact sensing, irrigated ablation catheter. The primary outcome was recurrence of CTI conduction after a 30-min waiting period. Secondary outcomes included total ablation, procedure, and fluoroscopy times, contact force measurement, and catheter stability. RESULTS: Recurrence of CTI conduction 30 min after ablation was less with robotically (0/25) versus manually (6/25) controlled ablation (p = 0.023). Total ablation and procedure times to achieve persistent CTI block (6.7 ± 3 vs. 7.4 ± 2.5 min and 14.9 ± 7.5 vs. 15.2 ± 7 min, respectively) were not significantly different (p = 0.35 and p = 0.91, respectively). There was a non-significant trend toward a greater force time integral (FTI in gm/s) with robotically versus manually controlled CTI ablation (571 ± 278 vs. 471 ± 179, p = 0.13). Fluoroscopy time was longer with robotically versus manually controlled CTI ablation (6.8 ± 4.4 min vs. 3.8 ± 2.3 min, p = 0.0027). There were no complications in either group. CONCLUSION: Robotically controlled CTI ablation resulted in fewer acute recurrences of CTI conduction compared to manually controlled CTI ablation, and a trend toward higher FTI. The longer fluoroscopy time during robotically controlled ablation was likely due to a steep learning curve. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02467179.
Authors: Annibale S Montenero; Nicola Bruno; Andrea Antonelli; Daniele Mangiameli; Luca Barbieri; Peter Andrew; Olive Murphy; Stephen O'Connor; Francesco Zumbo Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2005-02-15 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Kazim H Narsinh; Ricardo Paez; Kerstin Mueller; M Travis Caton; Amanda Baker; Randall T Higashida; Van V Halbach; Christopher F Dowd; Matthew R Amans; Steven W Hetts; Alexander M Norbash; Daniel L Cooke Journal: Neuroradiol J Date: 2021-08-16