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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |