Why the study?
Contact force sensing has emerged to guide catheter ablation for cardiac arrhythmias, but its clinical benefit on patient outcomes in typical atrial flutter remains unknown.
Does contact force-guided catheter ablation reduce re-conduction across the cavo-tricuspid isthmus in patients with typical atrial flutter?
Does contact force-guided catheter ablation reduce re-conduction across the cavo-tricuspid isthmus in patients with typical atrial flutter?
Contact force-guided ablation does not reduce CTI re-conduction at 3 months compared to ablation blinded to contact force in patients with typical atrial flutter.
CF guidance adds no benefit for typical AFL ablation; challenges routine CF-sensing catheter use in this setting.
AIMS: Contact force (CF) sensing has emerged as a tool to guide and improve outcomes for catheter ablation (CA) for cardiac arrhythmias. The clinical benefit on patient outcomes remains unknown. To study whether CF-guided CA for typical atrial flutter (AFL) is superior to CA not guided by CF. METHODS AND RESULTS: In a double-blinded controlled superiority trial, we randomized patients 1:1 to receive CA for typical AFL guided by CF (intervention group) or blinded to CF (control group). In the intervention group, a specific value of the lesion size index (LSI), estimating ablation lesions size was targeted for each ablation lesion. Patients underwent electrophysiological study (EPS) after 3 months to assess occurrence of the primary endpoint of re-conduction across the cavo-tricuspid isthmus (CTI). We included 156 patients with typical AFL, median age was 68 [interquartile range (IQR) 61-74] years and 120 (77%) patients were male. At index procedure median LSI was higher in the intervention group [6.4 (IQR 5.1-7) vs. 5.6 (IQR 4.5-6.9), P < 0.0001]. After 3 months, 126 patients (58 in intervention group) underwent EPS for primary endpoint assessment. Thirty (24%) patients had CTI re-conduction, distributed with 15 patients in each treatment group (P = 0.62). We observed no difference between treatment groups with regard to fluoroscopy, ablation, or procedure times, nor peri-procedural complications. CONCLUSION: Contact force-guided ablation does not reduce re-conduction across the CTI after 3 months, nor does CF-guided ablation shorten fluoroscopy, ablation, or total procedure times.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Giehm-Reese et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: