Cargando…

Multicentre randomised trial comparing contact force with electrical coupling index in atrial flutter ablation (VERISMART trial)

INTRODUCTION: Electrical coupling index (ECI) and contact force (CF) have been developed to aid lesion formation during catheter ablation. ECI measures tissue impedance and capacitance whilst CF measures direct contact. The aim was to determine whether the presence of catheter / tissue interaction i...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Begg, Gordon A., O’Neill, James, Sohaib, Afzal, McLean, Ailsa, Pepper, Chris B., Graham, Lee N., Hogarth, Andrew J., Page, Stephen P., Gillott, Richard G., Hill, Nicola, Walshaw, Jacqueline, Schilling, Richard J., Kanagaratnam, Prapa, Tayebjee, Muzahir H.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6447159/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30943196
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0212903
_version_ 1783408465938481152
author Begg, Gordon A.
O’Neill, James
Sohaib, Afzal
McLean, Ailsa
Pepper, Chris B.
Graham, Lee N.
Hogarth, Andrew J.
Page, Stephen P.
Gillott, Richard G.
Hill, Nicola
Walshaw, Jacqueline
Schilling, Richard J.
Kanagaratnam, Prapa
Tayebjee, Muzahir H.
author_facet Begg, Gordon A.
O’Neill, James
Sohaib, Afzal
McLean, Ailsa
Pepper, Chris B.
Graham, Lee N.
Hogarth, Andrew J.
Page, Stephen P.
Gillott, Richard G.
Hill, Nicola
Walshaw, Jacqueline
Schilling, Richard J.
Kanagaratnam, Prapa
Tayebjee, Muzahir H.
author_sort Begg, Gordon A.
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Electrical coupling index (ECI) and contact force (CF) have been developed to aid lesion formation during catheter ablation. ECI measures tissue impedance and capacitance whilst CF measures direct contact. The aim was to determine whether the presence of catheter / tissue interaction information, such as ECI and CF, reduce time to achieve bidirectional cavotricuspid isthmus block during atrial flutter (AFL) ablation. METHODS: Patients with paroxysmal or persistent AFL were randomised to CF visible (range 5-40g), CF not visible, ECI visible (change of 12%) or ECI not visible. Follow-up occurred at 3 and 6 months and included a 7 day ECG recording. The primary endpoint was time to bidirectional cavotricuspid isthmus block. RESULTS: 114 patients were randomised, 16 were excluded. Time to bidirectional block was significantly shorter when ECI was visible (median 30.0 mins (IQR 31) to median 10.5mins (IQR 12) p 0.023) versus ECI not visible. There was a trend towards a shorter time to bidirectional block when CF was visible. Higher force was applied when CF was visible (median 9.03g (IQR 7.4) vs. 11.3g (5.5) p 0.017). There was no difference in the acute recurrence of conduction between groups. The complication rate was 2%, AFL recurrence was 1.1% and at 6 month follow-up, 12% had atrial fibrillation. CONCLUSION: The use of tissue contact information during AFL ablation was associated with reduced time taken to achieve bidirectional block when ECI was visible. Contact force data improved contact when visible with a trend towards a reduction in the procedural endpoint. ClinicalTrials.gov trial identifier: NCT02490033.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6447159
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-64471592019-04-17 Multicentre randomised trial comparing contact force with electrical coupling index in atrial flutter ablation (VERISMART trial) Begg, Gordon A. O’Neill, James Sohaib, Afzal McLean, Ailsa Pepper, Chris B. Graham, Lee N. Hogarth, Andrew J. Page, Stephen P. Gillott, Richard G. Hill, Nicola Walshaw, Jacqueline Schilling, Richard J. Kanagaratnam, Prapa Tayebjee, Muzahir H. PLoS One Research Article INTRODUCTION: Electrical coupling index (ECI) and contact force (CF) have been developed to aid lesion formation during catheter ablation. ECI measures tissue impedance and capacitance whilst CF measures direct contact. The aim was to determine whether the presence of catheter / tissue interaction information, such as ECI and CF, reduce time to achieve bidirectional cavotricuspid isthmus block during atrial flutter (AFL) ablation. METHODS: Patients with paroxysmal or persistent AFL were randomised to CF visible (range 5-40g), CF not visible, ECI visible (change of 12%) or ECI not visible. Follow-up occurred at 3 and 6 months and included a 7 day ECG recording. The primary endpoint was time to bidirectional cavotricuspid isthmus block. RESULTS: 114 patients were randomised, 16 were excluded. Time to bidirectional block was significantly shorter when ECI was visible (median 30.0 mins (IQR 31) to median 10.5mins (IQR 12) p 0.023) versus ECI not visible. There was a trend towards a shorter time to bidirectional block when CF was visible. Higher force was applied when CF was visible (median 9.03g (IQR 7.4) vs. 11.3g (5.5) p 0.017). There was no difference in the acute recurrence of conduction between groups. The complication rate was 2%, AFL recurrence was 1.1% and at 6 month follow-up, 12% had atrial fibrillation. CONCLUSION: The use of tissue contact information during AFL ablation was associated with reduced time taken to achieve bidirectional block when ECI was visible. Contact force data improved contact when visible with a trend towards a reduction in the procedural endpoint. ClinicalTrials.gov trial identifier: NCT02490033. Public Library of Science 2019-04-03 /pmc/articles/PMC6447159/ /pubmed/30943196 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0212903 Text en © 2019 Begg et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Begg, Gordon A.
O’Neill, James
Sohaib, Afzal
McLean, Ailsa
Pepper, Chris B.
Graham, Lee N.
Hogarth, Andrew J.
Page, Stephen P.
Gillott, Richard G.
Hill, Nicola
Walshaw, Jacqueline
Schilling, Richard J.
Kanagaratnam, Prapa
Tayebjee, Muzahir H.
Multicentre randomised trial comparing contact force with electrical coupling index in atrial flutter ablation (VERISMART trial)
title Multicentre randomised trial comparing contact force with electrical coupling index in atrial flutter ablation (VERISMART trial)
title_full Multicentre randomised trial comparing contact force with electrical coupling index in atrial flutter ablation (VERISMART trial)
title_fullStr Multicentre randomised trial comparing contact force with electrical coupling index in atrial flutter ablation (VERISMART trial)
title_full_unstemmed Multicentre randomised trial comparing contact force with electrical coupling index in atrial flutter ablation (VERISMART trial)
title_short Multicentre randomised trial comparing contact force with electrical coupling index in atrial flutter ablation (VERISMART trial)
title_sort multicentre randomised trial comparing contact force with electrical coupling index in atrial flutter ablation (verismart trial)
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6447159/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30943196
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0212903
work_keys_str_mv AT begggordona multicentrerandomisedtrialcomparingcontactforcewithelectricalcouplingindexinatrialflutterablationverismarttrial
AT oneilljames multicentrerandomisedtrialcomparingcontactforcewithelectricalcouplingindexinatrialflutterablationverismarttrial
AT sohaibafzal multicentrerandomisedtrialcomparingcontactforcewithelectricalcouplingindexinatrialflutterablationverismarttrial
AT mcleanailsa multicentrerandomisedtrialcomparingcontactforcewithelectricalcouplingindexinatrialflutterablationverismarttrial
AT pepperchrisb multicentrerandomisedtrialcomparingcontactforcewithelectricalcouplingindexinatrialflutterablationverismarttrial
AT grahamleen multicentrerandomisedtrialcomparingcontactforcewithelectricalcouplingindexinatrialflutterablationverismarttrial
AT hogarthandrewj multicentrerandomisedtrialcomparingcontactforcewithelectricalcouplingindexinatrialflutterablationverismarttrial
AT pagestephenp multicentrerandomisedtrialcomparingcontactforcewithelectricalcouplingindexinatrialflutterablationverismarttrial
AT gillottrichardg multicentrerandomisedtrialcomparingcontactforcewithelectricalcouplingindexinatrialflutterablationverismarttrial
AT hillnicola multicentrerandomisedtrialcomparingcontactforcewithelectricalcouplingindexinatrialflutterablationverismarttrial
AT walshawjacqueline multicentrerandomisedtrialcomparingcontactforcewithelectricalcouplingindexinatrialflutterablationverismarttrial
AT schillingrichardj multicentrerandomisedtrialcomparingcontactforcewithelectricalcouplingindexinatrialflutterablationverismarttrial
AT kanagaratnamprapa multicentrerandomisedtrialcomparingcontactforcewithelectricalcouplingindexinatrialflutterablationverismarttrial
AT tayebjeemuzahirh multicentrerandomisedtrialcomparingcontactforcewithelectricalcouplingindexinatrialflutterablationverismarttrial