Key result
ThermoCool Smarttouch Surroundflow catheter ablation reduced procedural times (SMD -0.22; 95% CI -0.37 to -0.07; P=0.005) compared to STc, with no significant difference in freedom from AF.
Why the study?
Comparative data between the ThermoCool SmartTouch SurroundFlow catheter (STSFc) and the contact force sensing Thermocool SmartTouch catheter (STc) were limited.
Does ThermoCool SmartTouch SurroundFlow catheter (STSFc) ablation reduce procedural times and improve safety compared to ThermoCool SmartTouch catheter (STc) ablation in patients with atrial fibrillation?
Meta-Analysis (n=727)
Does ThermoCool SmartTouch SurroundFlow catheter (STSFc) ablation reduce procedural times and improve safety compared to ThermoCool SmartTouch catheter (STc) ablation in patients with atrial fibrillation?
Standardized Mean Difference: -0.22 (95% CI -0.37–-0.07)
p-value: p=.005
The use of the ThermoCool SmartTouch SurroundFlow catheter for AF ablation reduces procedural times and irrigation fluid volume compared to the standard contact force sensing catheter, without compromising safety or efficacy.
Shorter procedural times without loss of AF freedom; supports adoption of surroundflow catheters and further comparative trials.
BACKGROUND: The ThermoCool Smarttouch Surroundflow catheter (STSFc) is an advanced catheter, which integrating contact force sensing and surroundflow technology. However, comparative data between STSFc and contact force sensing catheter (Thermocool SmartTouch catheter [STc]) are limited. HYPOTHESIS: We thought that STSFc might bring more clinical benefits. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the safety and efficiency between the STSFc and the STc for treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS: The Medline, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for studies comparing STSFc and STc. RESULTS: Four trials involving 727 patients were included in the study. Pool-analyses demonstrated that, as compared STc ablation, STSFc ablation was more beneficial in terms of procedural times (standard mean difference [SMD]: -0.22; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.37 to -0.07, P = .005) and irrigation fluid volume (SMD: -1.94; 95% CI, -2.65 to -1.22, P < .0001). There was no significant difference between STSFc and STc (risk ratio [RR]: 1.02; 95% CI: 0.86 to 1.21, P = .79) for free from AF. Evidence of complications were low and similar for both groups (RR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.19-3.55, P = .80). Additionally, patients administered STSFc ablation tended to have shorter fluoroscopic times (SMD: -0.20; 95% CI, -0.63-0.23, P = .21). CONCLUSIONS: STSFc ablation was associated with reducing procedural times and irrigation fluid volume. Further, STSFc ablation tended to shorten fluoroscopic times. Therefore, STSFc ablation would be a better choice for AF patients especially in patients with heart failure.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chen et al. (2019) conducted a meta-analysis in atrial fibrillation (n=727). ThermoCool Smarttouch Surroundflow catheter (STSFc) vs. Thermocool SmartTouch catheter (STc) was evaluated on procedural times (SMD -0.22, 95% CI -0.37 to -0.07, p=.005). ThermoCool Smarttouch Surroundflow catheter ablation reduced procedural times (SMD -0.22; 95% CI -0.37 to -0.07; P=0.005) compared to STc, with no significant difference in freedom from AF.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: