Lee So-Ryoung1,2, Park Hyoung-Seob3,2, Choi Eue-Keun1, Kwon Soonil1, Cho Youngjin4, Oh Il-Young4, Oh Seil1, Han Seongwook3. 1. Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 2. the first two authors equally contributed. 3. Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Keimyung University, Dongsan Medical Center, Daegu, Republic of Korea. 4. Department of Internal Medicine, Cardiovascular Center, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Republic of Korea.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of information regarding whether contact force (CF)-guided ablation improves the outcomes of pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) by achieving more optimal contact. We sought to assess whether real time CF-guided ablation has an impact on ablation parameters and acute pulmonary vein reconnection (PVR). METHODS: Left or right PVs were randomized to either CF-guided or blinded groups, and the order of CF blindness: CF-guided left PV/CF-blinded right PV, CF-blinded left PV/CF-guided right PV, CF-guided right PV/CF-blinded left PV, and CF-blinded right PV/CF-guided left PV groups. We compared CF parameters and acute PVR between segments ablated by CF-guided and CF-blinded strategies. RESULTS: Sixty patients with drug refractory symptomatic AF were included (paroxysmal AF 73%). CF-guided segments did not show significant differences in CF parameters compared to CF-blinded segments. However, CF-guided segments showed fewer segments with mean CF value <5 g than CF-blinded segments (4.3% vs. 12.4%, p<0.001). Forty-two patients showed acute PVR in 92 segments (8.5%). CF-guided PV segments showed lower acute PVR rate than CF-blinded segments (5.9% vs. 11.1%, p=0.011). CONCLUSIONS: CF-guided ablation could reduce acute PVR after PVI by decreasing the number of segments with poor contact rather than increasing the mean CF during ablation. Better contact guided by CF information might help in improving the results of PVI. Further investigation will be needed to identify the association between the difference in acute reconnection and the long-term outcomes.
BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of information regarding whether contact force (CF)-guided ablation improves the outcomes of pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) by achieving more optimal contact. We sought to assess whether real time CF-guided ablation has an impact on ablation parameters and acute pulmonary vein reconnection (PVR). METHODS: Left or right PVs were randomized to either CF-guided or blinded groups, and the order of CF blindness: CF-guided left PV/CF-blinded right PV, CF-blinded left PV/CF-guided right PV, CF-guided right PV/CF-blinded left PV, and CF-blinded right PV/CF-guided left PV groups. We compared CF parameters and acute PVR between segments ablated by CF-guided and CF-blinded strategies. RESULTS: Sixty patients with drug refractory symptomatic AF were included (paroxysmal AF 73%). CF-guided segments did not show significant differences in CF parameters compared to CF-blinded segments. However, CF-guided segments showed fewer segments with mean CF value <5 g than CF-blinded segments (4.3% vs. 12.4%, p<0.001). Forty-two patients showed acute PVR in 92 segments (8.5%). CF-guided PV segments showed lower acute PVR rate than CF-blinded segments (5.9% vs. 11.1%, p=0.011). CONCLUSIONS: CF-guided ablation could reduce acute PVR after PVI by decreasing the number of segments with poor contact rather than increasing the mean CF during ablation. Better contact guided by CF information might help in improving the results of PVI. Further investigation will be needed to identify the association between the difference in acute reconnection and the long-term outcomes.
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: Paulus Kirchhof; Stefano Benussi; Dipak Kotecha; Anders Ahlsson; Dan Atar; Barbara Casadei; Manuel Castellá; Hans-Christoph Diener; Hein Heidbuchel; Jeroen Hendriks; Gerhard Hindricks; Antonis S Manolis; Jonas Oldgren; Bogdan Alexandru Popescu; Ulrich Schotten; Bart Van Putte; Panagiotis Vardas Journal: Rev Esp Cardiol (Engl Ed) Date: 2017-01
Authors: Chan-Il Park; Heiko Lehrmann; Cornelius Keyl; Reinhold Weber; Jochen Schiebeling; Juergen Allgeier; Patrick Schurr; Ashok Shah; Franz-Josef Neumann; Thomas Arentz; Amir S Jadidi Journal: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol Date: 2014-04-02
Authors: Shouvik Haldar; Julian W E Jarman; Sandeep Panikker; David G Jones; Tushar Salukhe; Dhiraj Gupta; Gareth Wynn; Wajid Hussain; Vias Markides; Tom Wong Journal: Int J Cardiol Date: 2012-12-04 Impact factor: 4.164
Authors: Kim Rajappan; Peter M Kistler; Mark J Earley; Glyn Thomas; Maite Izquierdo; Simon C Sporton; Richard J Schilling Journal: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol Date: 2008-12 Impact factor: 1.976
Authors: Josef Kautzner; Petr Neuzil; Hendrik Lambert; Petr Peichl; Jan Petru; Robert Cihak; Jan Skoda; Dan Wichterle; Erik Wissner; Aude Yulzari; Karl-Heinz Kuck Journal: Europace Date: 2015-06-03 Impact factor: 5.214