Why the study?
Does circular irrigated radiofrequency ablation using the nMARQ catheter safely and effectively treat paroxysmal and persistent atrial fibrillation?
Does circular irrigated radiofrequency ablation using the nMARQ catheter safely and effectively treat paroxysmal and persistent atrial fibrillation?
The nMARQ catheter demonstrated efficacy for AF ablation but was recalled from the market due to a 0.6% incidence of fatal atrio-oesophageal fistulas.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Highlights fatal atrio-oesophageal fistula risk with nMARQ; leaves open need for safer AF ablation technologies in prospective studies.
AIMS: Circular irrigated radiofrequency ablation using the nMARQ catheter has recently been introduced for the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF). The aim of this study is to report the safety and efficacy of catheter ablation using this technology in patients with paroxysmal and persistent AF. METHODS AND RESULTS: The data of a prospective registry describing the experience of a single operator using this technology on 327 consecutive patients were analysed. The mean procedure time was 69 ± 22 min for paroxysmal AF (n = 228) and 75 ± 23 min for persistent AF (n = 97). Follow-up was available for 206 (63%) patients for 6 ± 5 months (range 1-23, median 3.3). Single procedure success off antiarrhythmic drugs was 75% in paroxysmal AF and 52% in persistent AF. Including the 5% redo cases and those on antiarrhythmic medication, freedom from AF was documented in 90 and 83% of paroxysmal and persistent AF patients, respectively. There were no serious complications in the first 325 patients, but the last two consecutive patients (0.6%) developed atrio-oesophageal fistulas and had a fatal outcome. The catheter has been recalled from market. CONCLUSION: The nMARQ catheter is a highly effective tool for treatment of paroxysmal and persistent AF. Nevertheless, the occurrence of life-threatening oesophageal fistulas is of major concern and requires further investigation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Vurma et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: