Key result
Additional left atrial linear ablation using contact force-sensing technology did not significantly improve AF/AT-free survival compared to a CF-blind control (63.6% vs 58.6%, p=0.837).
Why the study?
The study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of contact force-sensing technology for additional left atrial linear ablation in persistent AF.
Does contact force-sensing technology reduce atrial arrhythmia recurrence and improve procedural metrics during linear ablation for persistent atrial fibrillation?
RCT (n=62)
Single-blind (operator blinded to contact force data)
Randomly assigned
Does contact force-sensing technology reduce atrial arrhythmia recurrence and improve procedural metrics during linear ablation for persistent atrial fibrillation?
Absolute Event Rate: 63.6% vs 58.6%
p-value: p=0.837
Using contact force-sensing technology for linear ablation in persistent AF reduces time to block and maximum contact force but does not significantly improve 1-year arrhythmia-free survival or permanent lesion formation compared to a blinded approach.
Background/Objectives: Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) using radiofrequency catheter ablation with contact force (CF)-sensing technology has improved long-term outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation. This prospective randomized study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of CF-sensing technology for additional left atrial (LA) linear ablation of persistent AF (PerAF). Methods: After PVI, anteromitral (AM) line and roof line ablation were performed using a CF-sensing catheter. Patients were randomly assigned to either the CF-sensing (CFS) group or the CF-blind control (Blind) group. The primary endpoint was atrial arrhythmia recurrence. LA late gadolinium enhancement (LA-LGE) MRI was conducted at baseline and 1-year follow-up for long-term lesion evaluation. Results: A total of 62 patients with drug-refractory PerAF were enrolled (mean age: 58 ± 10 years; 77% male). The success rates of AM and roof line block were 97% and 100% in the CFS group (n = 33) and 93% and 90% in the Blind group (n = 29). The time to achieve block was reduced in the CFS group (AM: 36 ± 22 vs. 48 ± 28 min, p = 0.068; roof: 19 ± 14 vs. 27 ± 15 min, p = 0.031). The maximum CF for safety endpoints was significantly lower in the CFS group (AM: 42 vs. 69 g, p < 0.001; roof: 33 vs. 49 g, p = 0.003). Full linear LA-LGE formation on 1-year MRI did not differ significantly between the groups (AM: 17 vs. 36%; roof; 29 vs. 24%, both p = NS). Kaplan–Meier estimates of AF/AT-free survival after ablation procedures were 63.6% in the CFS group and 58.6% in the Blind group (log-rank p = 0.837). Conclusions: In patients with PerAF, additional LA linear ablation following PVI using CF-sensing technology improved procedural safety and reduced the time needed to achieve conduction block. However, it did not significantly influence clinical outcomes or the formation of permanent full linear lesions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lee et al. (2024) conducted an RCT in Drug-refractory persistent atrial fibrillation (n=62). Contact force-sensing technology for left atrial linear ablation vs. Contact force-blind control was evaluated on Atrial arrhythmia recurrence (AF/AT-free survival) (p=0.837). Additional left atrial linear ablation using contact force-sensing technology did not significantly improve AF/AT-free survival compared to a CF-blind control (63.6% vs 58.6%, p=0.837).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: