Luqian Cui1, Yingjie Chu2, Yongmei Han1, Shujuan Dong3. 1. Department of Cardiology, Zhengzhou University People's Hospital, Zhengzhou, China. 2. Department of Cardiology, Henan Province People's Hospital, Zhengzhou, China. hnqbdsl@126.com. 3. Department of Cardiology, Henan Province People's Hospital, Zhengzhou, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Contact force-sensing catheters have been widely used in catheter ablation. During the past few decades, more attention has been paid on the technique of high-power ablation. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to compare the efficacy and safety of conventional power and high power on atrial fibrillation radiofrequency ablation by contact force-sensing catheters. METHODS: We identified studies through searching MEDLINE, Embase, the Web of Science, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library from inception up until July 2020. The primary outcomes were defined as recurrence of atrial tachyarrhythmia and complications. The secondary outcomes were acute reconnections of pulmonary veins (PVs), ablation time, and the total procedural time. RESULTS: Four nonrandomized, observational studies (nROS) were selected involving 231 patients with high-power ablation and 239 patients with conventional power ablation. There were insignificant differences in the recurrence rate of atrial tachyarrhythmia (14.2% versus 20.5%, OR: 0.64, 95%CI: 0.39 to 1.04, Z = 1.82, P = 0.07) and clinical complications (1.7% versus 2.5%, OR: 0.72, 95%CI: 0.21 to 2.47, Z = 0.51, P = 0.61) between high-power and conventional power ablation. However, compared with conventional power group, the high-power group had fewer acute PVs reconnections (P = 0.0001), shorter in ablation time (P < 0.0001), and the total procedural time (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: High-power ablation could not only ablate safely and efficiently but also reduce focal ablation time and total procedural time significantly.
BACKGROUND: Contact force-sensing catheters have been widely used in catheter ablation. During the past few decades, more attention has been paid on the technique of high-power ablation. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to compare the efficacy and safety of conventional power and high power on atrial fibrillation radiofrequency ablation by contact force-sensing catheters. METHODS: We identified studies through searching MEDLINE, Embase, the Web of Science, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library from inception up until July 2020. The primary outcomes were defined as recurrence of atrial tachyarrhythmia and complications. The secondary outcomes were acute reconnections of pulmonary veins (PVs), ablation time, and the total procedural time. RESULTS: Four nonrandomized, observational studies (nROS) were selected involving 231 patients with high-power ablation and 239 patients with conventional power ablation. There were insignificant differences in the recurrence rate of atrial tachyarrhythmia (14.2% versus 20.5%, OR: 0.64, 95%CI: 0.39 to 1.04, Z = 1.82, P = 0.07) and clinical complications (1.7% versus 2.5%, OR: 0.72, 95%CI: 0.21 to 2.47, Z = 0.51, P = 0.61) between high-power and conventional power ablation. However, compared with conventional power group, the high-power group had fewer acute PVs reconnections (P = 0.0001), shorter in ablation time (P < 0.0001), and the total procedural time (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: High-power ablation could not only ablate safely and efficiently but also reduce focal ablation time and total procedural time significantly.