Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
PulseExploreClubsResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeClubsExplore
July 30, 2022Journal of Interventional Cardiac ElectrophysiologyOpen Access

After 365 days of follow-up, 67% of patients in the CF group remained free from AF/AT recurrence compared to 59% in the non-CF group (P = 0.038).

View Full Paper
Ask AI
Bookmark
Share

Why the study?

Previous studies did not clearly show superior clinical efficacy of contact force-sensing catheters compared with non-contact force catheters for pulmonary vein isolation in atrial fibrillation.

Does contact force-sensing catheter ablation reduce atrial fibrillation or atrial tachycardia recurrence compared to non-contact force ablation in patients with atrial fibrillation?

Comparison

Contact force-sensing catheters vs non-contact force catheters

Design

Single-center observational comparison study

Follow-up

365 days

Authors

SSSimon SchlöglKSKlaudia Stella SchlöglPBPhilipp Bengel

Discussion

Loading...

Member takes

Overview

CF-guided PVI was associated with higher 1-year freedom from recurrence and shorter procedures; leaves open whether randomized evidence will confirm benefit.

Structured PICO

Does contact force-sensing catheter ablation reduce atrial fibrillation or atrial tachycardia recurrence compared to non-contact force ablation in patients with atrial fibrillation?

P
Population
671 consecutive patients who underwent index pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) for atrial fibrillation (AF) at a single center between 2012 and 2018. 63% had persistent AF. Mean age ~63-64 years, ~60-63% male.
I
Intervention
Open-irrigated, mapping, and contact force-sensing radiofrequency ablation catheter (Thermocool SmartTouch Surround Flow)
C
Comparator
Open-irrigated, mapping, and ablation catheter without contact force-sensing (Thermocool Surround Flow)
O
Outcome
Any documented atrial tachycardia (AT) or atrial fibrillation > 30 s after a 3-month blanking periodcomposite

Contact force-guided pulmonary vein isolation significantly reduces 1-year AF/AT recurrence and procedural times compared to non-contact force ablation in a real-world cohort with predominantly persistent AF.

Limitations

  • Non-randomized single-center observational study
  • Asymptomatic episodes of AF may have been missed
  • Same experienced operators performed all procedures, introducing potential learning curve bias
  • Did not incorporate ablation index or Carto Visitag module with stability settings

Cite This Study

Schlögl et al. (2022) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a708125f44fa9f079de29bahttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10840-022-01316-8
View Full Paper
Ask AI
Bookmark
Share