Key result
High-power short-duration ablation linked to a ~13% higher first-pass isolation rate versus low-power long-duration ablation.
Why the study?
The study was conducted to investigate the procedural efficiency, efficacy, and safety of high-power, short-term radiofrequency ablation delivered by the SmartTouch Surround Flow catheter for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation.
Does high-power, short-duration radiofrequency ablation delivered by an STSF catheter improve procedural efficiency and efficacy compared to low-power, long-duration ablation in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation?
Cohort (n=72)
Does high-power, short-duration radiofrequency ablation delivered by an STSF catheter improve procedural efficiency and efficacy compared to low-power, long-duration ablation in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation?
Absolute Event Rate: 95.8% vs 84.7%
p-value: p=0.023
High-power, short-duration ablation using the STSF catheter improves procedural efficiency and first-pass isolation rates without increasing complications compared to conventional ablation in paroxysmal AF.
May support high-power short-duration STSF ablation for paroxysmal AF; leaves open randomized confirmation of efficacy and outcomes.
Objectives. To investigate the procedural efficiency, efficacy, and safety of high-power, short-term radiofrequency ablation delivered by the SmartTouch Surround Flow (STSF) catheter for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF). Methods. We retrospectively analyzed a total of 72 patients who were admitted with paroxysmal AF, and who underwent radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA) for the first time. Of these patients, 36 cases underwent low-power, long-duration (LPLD, (30–35 W/20–40 s) pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) delivered by an SmartTouch (ST) catheter (control group), and the other 36 cases underwent high-power, short-duration (HPSD, (45–50 W/10–20 s) PVI delivered by a STSF catheter (study group). The baseline data, duration of PVI, procedural time, fluoroscopy time, the rate of first-pass isolation, irrigation perfusion, eschar and steam pop occurrences, intraoperative complications, and the rate of stable sinus rhythm maintenance following a blanking period of three months were analyzed between the two groups. Results. The isolation time of bilateral PVI and procedural time in the study group were markedly less than in controls ( <a:math xmlns:a="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M1"> <a:mi>p</a:mi> <a:mo><</a:mo> <a:mn>0.01</a:mn> </a:math> ). The rate of first-pass isolation in the study group was significantly higher than in the control group (95.8% vs. 84.7%, <c:math xmlns:c="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M2"> <c:mi>p</c:mi> <c:mo>=</c:mo> <c:mn>0.023</c:mn> </c:math> ), while the fluid perfusion in the study group was approximately 20% less than that in the control group (767 ± 171 vs. 966 ± 227 ml, <e:math xmlns:e="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M3"> <e:mi>p</e:mi> <e:mo><</e:mo> <e:mn>0.001</e:mn> </e:math> ). We observed no severe complications in any patients. The rate of freedom from AF recurrences following a blanking period of three months showed a tendency to be higher than in controls (93.9% vs. 87.1%, <g:math xmlns:g="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M4"> <g:mi>p</g:mi> <g:mo>=</g:mo> <g:mn>0.348</g:mn> </g:math> ). Conclusions. The HPSD strategy delivered by the STSF catheter was superior to conventional LPLD ablation through the ST catheter with respect to efficiency, acute procedural effectiveness, short-term safety, and the risk of heart failure in patients with paroxysmal AF.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cheng et al. (2022) conducted a cohort in paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (n=72). High-power, short-duration radiofrequency ablation (STSF catheter) vs. Low-power, long-duration radiofrequency ablation (ST catheter) was evaluated on Rate of first-pass isolation (p=0.023). High-power, short-duration ablation using the STSF catheter significantly increased the rate of first-pass isolation compared to low-power, long-duration ablation (95.8% vs. 84.7%, p=0.023).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: