Cargando…

Contact Force-Sensing versus Standard Catheters in Non-Fluoroscopic Radiofrequency Catheter Ablation of Idiopathic Outflow Tract Ventricular Arrhythmias

Background: Adequate contact between the catheter tip and tissue is important for optimal lesion formation and, in some procedures, it has been associated with improved effectiveness and safety. We evaluated the potential benefits of contact force-sensing (CFS) catheters during non-fluoroscopic radi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Karkowski, Grzegorz, Kuniewicz, Marcin, Ząbek, Andrzej, Koźluk, Edward, Dębski, Maciej, Matusik, Paweł T., Lelakowski, Jacek
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8836481/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35160043
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm11030593
_version_ 1784649690099220480
author Karkowski, Grzegorz
Kuniewicz, Marcin
Ząbek, Andrzej
Koźluk, Edward
Dębski, Maciej
Matusik, Paweł T.
Lelakowski, Jacek
author_facet Karkowski, Grzegorz
Kuniewicz, Marcin
Ząbek, Andrzej
Koźluk, Edward
Dębski, Maciej
Matusik, Paweł T.
Lelakowski, Jacek
author_sort Karkowski, Grzegorz
collection PubMed
description Background: Adequate contact between the catheter tip and tissue is important for optimal lesion formation and, in some procedures, it has been associated with improved effectiveness and safety. We evaluated the potential benefits of contact force-sensing (CFS) catheters during non-fluoroscopic radiofrequency catheter ablation (NF-RFCA) of idiopathic ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) originating from outflow tracts (OTs). Methods: A group of 102 patients who underwent NF-RFCA (CARTO, Biosense Webster Inc., Irvine, CA, USA) of VAs from OTs between 2014 to 2018 was retrospectively analyzed. Results: We included 52 (50.9%) patients in whom NF-RFCA was performed using CFS catheters and 50 (49.1%) who were ablated using standard catheters. Arrhythmias were localized in the right and left OT in 70 (68.6%) and 32 (31.4%) patients, respectively. The RFCA acute success rate was 96.1% (n = 98) and long-term success during a minimum 12-month follow-up (mean 51.3 ± 21.6 months) was 85.3% (n = 87), with no difference between CFS and standard catheters. There was no difference in complications rate between CFS (n = 1) and standard catheter (n = 2) ablations. Conclusions: There is no additional advantage of CFS catheters use over standard catheters during NF-RFCA of OT-VAs in terms of procedural effectiveness and safety.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8836481
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-88364812022-02-12 Contact Force-Sensing versus Standard Catheters in Non-Fluoroscopic Radiofrequency Catheter Ablation of Idiopathic Outflow Tract Ventricular Arrhythmias Karkowski, Grzegorz Kuniewicz, Marcin Ząbek, Andrzej Koźluk, Edward Dębski, Maciej Matusik, Paweł T. Lelakowski, Jacek J Clin Med Article Background: Adequate contact between the catheter tip and tissue is important for optimal lesion formation and, in some procedures, it has been associated with improved effectiveness and safety. We evaluated the potential benefits of contact force-sensing (CFS) catheters during non-fluoroscopic radiofrequency catheter ablation (NF-RFCA) of idiopathic ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) originating from outflow tracts (OTs). Methods: A group of 102 patients who underwent NF-RFCA (CARTO, Biosense Webster Inc., Irvine, CA, USA) of VAs from OTs between 2014 to 2018 was retrospectively analyzed. Results: We included 52 (50.9%) patients in whom NF-RFCA was performed using CFS catheters and 50 (49.1%) who were ablated using standard catheters. Arrhythmias were localized in the right and left OT in 70 (68.6%) and 32 (31.4%) patients, respectively. The RFCA acute success rate was 96.1% (n = 98) and long-term success during a minimum 12-month follow-up (mean 51.3 ± 21.6 months) was 85.3% (n = 87), with no difference between CFS and standard catheters. There was no difference in complications rate between CFS (n = 1) and standard catheter (n = 2) ablations. Conclusions: There is no additional advantage of CFS catheters use over standard catheters during NF-RFCA of OT-VAs in terms of procedural effectiveness and safety. MDPI 2022-01-25 /pmc/articles/PMC8836481/ /pubmed/35160043 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm11030593 Text en © 2022 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Karkowski, Grzegorz
Kuniewicz, Marcin
Ząbek, Andrzej
Koźluk, Edward
Dębski, Maciej
Matusik, Paweł T.
Lelakowski, Jacek
Contact Force-Sensing versus Standard Catheters in Non-Fluoroscopic Radiofrequency Catheter Ablation of Idiopathic Outflow Tract Ventricular Arrhythmias
title Contact Force-Sensing versus Standard Catheters in Non-Fluoroscopic Radiofrequency Catheter Ablation of Idiopathic Outflow Tract Ventricular Arrhythmias
title_full Contact Force-Sensing versus Standard Catheters in Non-Fluoroscopic Radiofrequency Catheter Ablation of Idiopathic Outflow Tract Ventricular Arrhythmias
title_fullStr Contact Force-Sensing versus Standard Catheters in Non-Fluoroscopic Radiofrequency Catheter Ablation of Idiopathic Outflow Tract Ventricular Arrhythmias
title_full_unstemmed Contact Force-Sensing versus Standard Catheters in Non-Fluoroscopic Radiofrequency Catheter Ablation of Idiopathic Outflow Tract Ventricular Arrhythmias
title_short Contact Force-Sensing versus Standard Catheters in Non-Fluoroscopic Radiofrequency Catheter Ablation of Idiopathic Outflow Tract Ventricular Arrhythmias
title_sort contact force-sensing versus standard catheters in non-fluoroscopic radiofrequency catheter ablation of idiopathic outflow tract ventricular arrhythmias
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8836481/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35160043
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm11030593
work_keys_str_mv AT karkowskigrzegorz contactforcesensingversusstandardcathetersinnonfluoroscopicradiofrequencycatheterablationofidiopathicoutflowtractventriculararrhythmias
AT kuniewiczmarcin contactforcesensingversusstandardcathetersinnonfluoroscopicradiofrequencycatheterablationofidiopathicoutflowtractventriculararrhythmias
AT zabekandrzej contactforcesensingversusstandardcathetersinnonfluoroscopicradiofrequencycatheterablationofidiopathicoutflowtractventriculararrhythmias
AT kozlukedward contactforcesensingversusstandardcathetersinnonfluoroscopicradiofrequencycatheterablationofidiopathicoutflowtractventriculararrhythmias
AT debskimaciej contactforcesensingversusstandardcathetersinnonfluoroscopicradiofrequencycatheterablationofidiopathicoutflowtractventriculararrhythmias
AT matusikpawełt contactforcesensingversusstandardcathetersinnonfluoroscopicradiofrequencycatheterablationofidiopathicoutflowtractventriculararrhythmias
AT lelakowskijacek contactforcesensingversusstandardcathetersinnonfluoroscopicradiofrequencycatheterablationofidiopathicoutflowtractventriculararrhythmias