Cargando…

Impact of open-irrigated radiofrequency catheter with contact force measurement on the efficacy and safety of atrial fibrillation ablation: a single-center direct comparison

BACKGROUND: In atrial fibrillation (AF) patients, catheter ablation of pulmonary veins (PVI) is the most effective therapeutic option to maintain sinus rhythm. To improve successful PVI, contact force–sensing (CF) catheters became routinely available. Previous studies did not clearly show superior c...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Schlögl, Simon, Schlögl, Klaudia Stella, Bengel, Philipp, Bergau, Leonard, Haarmann, Helge, Rasenack, Eva, Hasenfuss, Gerd, Zabel, Markus
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer US 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9726666/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35907108
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10840-022-01316-8
_version_ 1784844835886202880
author Schlögl, Simon
Schlögl, Klaudia Stella
Bengel, Philipp
Bergau, Leonard
Haarmann, Helge
Rasenack, Eva
Hasenfuss, Gerd
Zabel, Markus
author_facet Schlögl, Simon
Schlögl, Klaudia Stella
Bengel, Philipp
Bergau, Leonard
Haarmann, Helge
Rasenack, Eva
Hasenfuss, Gerd
Zabel, Markus
author_sort Schlögl, Simon
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: In atrial fibrillation (AF) patients, catheter ablation of pulmonary veins (PVI) is the most effective therapeutic option to maintain sinus rhythm. To improve successful PVI, contact force–sensing (CF) catheters became routinely available. Previous studies did not clearly show superior clinical efficacy in comparison with non-CF catheters. METHODS: We investigated consecutive patients, who underwent index PVI for AF at our hospital between 2012 and 2018. Three hundred and fifty-four patients were ablated without CF. After availability of CF catheters in 2016, 317 patients were ablated using CF. In case of crossover between the groups, follow-up was censored. The primary endpoint was any documented atrial tachycardia (AT) or atrial fibrillation > 30 s after a 3-month blanking period. Secondary endpoints were procedural characteristics and periprocedural complications. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the groups at baseline except hyperlipidemia. After 365 days of follow-up, 67% of patients in the CF group remained free from AF/AT recurrence compared to 59% in non-CF group (P = 0.038). In multivariable Cox regression analysis, non-CF ablation was an independent risk factor for AF recurrence besides age and persistent AF. Total fluoroscopy time (15 ± 7.6 vs. 28 ± 15.9 min) and total procedure time (114 ± 29.6 vs. 136 ± 38.5 min) were significantly lower for CF-guided PVI (P < 0.001). Complication rates did not differ between groups (P = 0.661). CONCLUSIONS: In our study, the AT/AF recurrence rate and pulmonary vein reconnection rate is lower after CF PVI with a similar complication rate but lower total procedure time and total fluoroscopy time compared to non-CF PVI.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9726666
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Springer US
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-97266662022-12-08 Impact of open-irrigated radiofrequency catheter with contact force measurement on the efficacy and safety of atrial fibrillation ablation: a single-center direct comparison Schlögl, Simon Schlögl, Klaudia Stella Bengel, Philipp Bergau, Leonard Haarmann, Helge Rasenack, Eva Hasenfuss, Gerd Zabel, Markus J Interv Card Electrophysiol Article BACKGROUND: In atrial fibrillation (AF) patients, catheter ablation of pulmonary veins (PVI) is the most effective therapeutic option to maintain sinus rhythm. To improve successful PVI, contact force–sensing (CF) catheters became routinely available. Previous studies did not clearly show superior clinical efficacy in comparison with non-CF catheters. METHODS: We investigated consecutive patients, who underwent index PVI for AF at our hospital between 2012 and 2018. Three hundred and fifty-four patients were ablated without CF. After availability of CF catheters in 2016, 317 patients were ablated using CF. In case of crossover between the groups, follow-up was censored. The primary endpoint was any documented atrial tachycardia (AT) or atrial fibrillation > 30 s after a 3-month blanking period. Secondary endpoints were procedural characteristics and periprocedural complications. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the groups at baseline except hyperlipidemia. After 365 days of follow-up, 67% of patients in the CF group remained free from AF/AT recurrence compared to 59% in non-CF group (P = 0.038). In multivariable Cox regression analysis, non-CF ablation was an independent risk factor for AF recurrence besides age and persistent AF. Total fluoroscopy time (15 ± 7.6 vs. 28 ± 15.9 min) and total procedure time (114 ± 29.6 vs. 136 ± 38.5 min) were significantly lower for CF-guided PVI (P < 0.001). Complication rates did not differ between groups (P = 0.661). CONCLUSIONS: In our study, the AT/AF recurrence rate and pulmonary vein reconnection rate is lower after CF PVI with a similar complication rate but lower total procedure time and total fluoroscopy time compared to non-CF PVI. Springer US 2022-07-30 2022 /pmc/articles/PMC9726666/ /pubmed/35907108 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10840-022-01316-8 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Article
Schlögl, Simon
Schlögl, Klaudia Stella
Bengel, Philipp
Bergau, Leonard
Haarmann, Helge
Rasenack, Eva
Hasenfuss, Gerd
Zabel, Markus
Impact of open-irrigated radiofrequency catheter with contact force measurement on the efficacy and safety of atrial fibrillation ablation: a single-center direct comparison
title Impact of open-irrigated radiofrequency catheter with contact force measurement on the efficacy and safety of atrial fibrillation ablation: a single-center direct comparison
title_full Impact of open-irrigated radiofrequency catheter with contact force measurement on the efficacy and safety of atrial fibrillation ablation: a single-center direct comparison
title_fullStr Impact of open-irrigated radiofrequency catheter with contact force measurement on the efficacy and safety of atrial fibrillation ablation: a single-center direct comparison
title_full_unstemmed Impact of open-irrigated radiofrequency catheter with contact force measurement on the efficacy and safety of atrial fibrillation ablation: a single-center direct comparison
title_short Impact of open-irrigated radiofrequency catheter with contact force measurement on the efficacy and safety of atrial fibrillation ablation: a single-center direct comparison
title_sort impact of open-irrigated radiofrequency catheter with contact force measurement on the efficacy and safety of atrial fibrillation ablation: a single-center direct comparison
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9726666/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35907108
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10840-022-01316-8
work_keys_str_mv AT schloglsimon impactofopenirrigatedradiofrequencycatheterwithcontactforcemeasurementontheefficacyandsafetyofatrialfibrillationablationasinglecenterdirectcomparison
AT schloglklaudiastella impactofopenirrigatedradiofrequencycatheterwithcontactforcemeasurementontheefficacyandsafetyofatrialfibrillationablationasinglecenterdirectcomparison
AT bengelphilipp impactofopenirrigatedradiofrequencycatheterwithcontactforcemeasurementontheefficacyandsafetyofatrialfibrillationablationasinglecenterdirectcomparison
AT bergauleonard impactofopenirrigatedradiofrequencycatheterwithcontactforcemeasurementontheefficacyandsafetyofatrialfibrillationablationasinglecenterdirectcomparison
AT haarmannhelge impactofopenirrigatedradiofrequencycatheterwithcontactforcemeasurementontheefficacyandsafetyofatrialfibrillationablationasinglecenterdirectcomparison
AT rasenackeva impactofopenirrigatedradiofrequencycatheterwithcontactforcemeasurementontheefficacyandsafetyofatrialfibrillationablationasinglecenterdirectcomparison
AT hasenfussgerd impactofopenirrigatedradiofrequencycatheterwithcontactforcemeasurementontheefficacyandsafetyofatrialfibrillationablationasinglecenterdirectcomparison
AT zabelmarkus impactofopenirrigatedradiofrequencycatheterwithcontactforcemeasurementontheefficacyandsafetyofatrialfibrillationablationasinglecenterdirectcomparison