Daniel R Frisch1, Sean J Dikdan1. 1. Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Division of Cardiology, 111 S 11th St, Philadelphia, PA 19107.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A major innovation in atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation has been the introduction of contact force (CF) sensing catheters. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate procedural and clinical effects of transitioning to CF-guided AF ablation. METHODS: Consecutive AF ablation patients were studiedduring the period of time of transitioning from a non-CF to CF sensing catheter. Procedural data recorded was total radiofrequency time, time to isolate the left pulmonary veins (LPVs), and time to isolate the right pulmonary veins (RPVs). Clinically, the 3 and 12-month maintenance of sinus rhythm was noted and compared by: paroxysmal vs. persistent AF; CT scan LA volume more or less than 150 cc; CHA2DS2VASC more or less than 2; and LVEF more or less than 55%. Safety data was recorded as well. RESULTS: Total ablation times were shorter (113 vs.146 min, p=0.011)when using the CF catheters compared to non-CF ablations. This was driven by a decrease in both LPV (46 vs.72 min, p<0.001) and RPV time (54 vs. 75 min, p=0.002).The use of CF catheter did not change the overall percentage of patients in sinus rhythm at 3 and 12-months of follow up. However, sinus rhythm was more frequent at 12 months with CF ablation inpatients with an LA volume of more than 150 cc when compared to non-CF ablation (84.6% and 52.4%, p=0.03). There was no difference in outcomes with stratification by CHA2DS2VASC score or LVEF. No significant difference in complications was noted. CONCLUSIONS: For AF ablation, the initial use of CF-sensing technology reduced procedure times with similar overall sinus rhythm maintenance at 3 and 12 months. CF improved 12-month outcomes in patients with an enlarged LA.
BACKGROUND: A major innovation in atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation has been the introduction of contact force (CF) sensing catheters. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate procedural and clinical effects of transitioning to CF-guided AF ablation. METHODS: Consecutive AF ablation patients were studiedduring the period of time of transitioning from a non-CF to CF sensing catheter. Procedural data recorded was total radiofrequency time, time to isolate the left pulmonary veins (LPVs), and time to isolate the right pulmonary veins (RPVs). Clinically, the 3 and 12-month maintenance of sinus rhythm was noted and compared by: paroxysmal vs. persistent AF; CT scan LA volume more or less than 150 cc; CHA2DS2VASC more or less than 2; and LVEF more or less than 55%. Safety data was recorded as well. RESULTS: Total ablation times were shorter (113 vs.146 min, p=0.011)when using the CF catheters compared to non-CF ablations. This was driven by a decrease in both LPV (46 vs.72 min, p<0.001) and RPV time (54 vs. 75 min, p=0.002).The use of CF catheter did not change the overall percentage of patients in sinus rhythm at 3 and 12-months of follow up. However, sinus rhythm was more frequent at 12 months with CF ablation inpatients with an LA volume of more than 150 cc when compared to non-CF ablation (84.6% and 52.4%, p=0.03). There was no difference in outcomes with stratification by CHA2DS2VASC score or LVEF. No significant difference in complications was noted. CONCLUSIONS: For AF ablation, the initial use of CF-sensing technology reduced procedure times with similar overall sinus rhythm maintenance at 3 and 12 months. CF improved 12-month outcomes in patients with an enlarged LA.
Entities:
Keywords:
Ablation; Atrial Fibrillation; Contact Force
Authors: Jason G Andrade; George Monir; Scott J Pollak; Paul Khairy; Marc Dubuc; Denis Roy; Mario Talajic; Marc Deyell; Léna Rivard; Bernard Thibault; Peter G Guerra; Stanley Nattel; Laurent Macle Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2014-07-25 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Petr Neuzil; Vivek Y Reddy; Josef Kautzner; Jan Petru; Dan Wichterle; Dipen Shah; Hendrik Lambert; Aude Yulzari; Erik Wissner; Karl-Heinz Kuck Journal: Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol Date: 2013-03-20
Authors: Ata Soleimani Rahbar; Jonathan C Hsu; Frederick T Han; NhuNhu Nguyen; Minkyung Kwon; Peyman N Azadani; Gregory M Marcus; Byron K Lee Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2013-09-06 Impact factor: 6.343
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: Sana M Al-Khatib; F Lee Lucas; James G Jollis; David J Malenka; David E Wennberg Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2005-09-23 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Carlos A Morillo; Atul Verma; Stuart J Connolly; Karl H Kuck; Girish M Nair; Jean Champagne; Laurence D Sterns; Heather Beresh; Jeffrey S Healey; Andrea Natale Journal: JAMA Date: 2014-02-19 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: David J Wilber; Carlo Pappone; Petr Neuzil; Angelo De Paola; Frank Marchlinski; Andrea Natale; Laurent Macle; Emile G Daoud; Hugh Calkins; Burr Hall; Vivek Reddy; Giuseppe Augello; Matthew R Reynolds; Chandan Vinekar; Christine Y Liu; Scott M Berry; Donald A Berry Journal: JAMA Date: 2010-01-27 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Joey Junarta; Sean J Dikdan; Naman Upadhyay; Sairamya Bodempudi; Michael Y Shvili; Daniel R Frisch Journal: Heart Vessels Date: 2021-11-30 Impact factor: 1.814