January 1, 2017The Anatolian Journal of CardiologyOpen Access

Impact of contact force technology on reducing the recurrence and major complications of atrial fibrillation ablation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Why the study?

Does atrial fibrillation ablation using contact force-sensing catheters reduce AF recurrence and major complications compared to standard non-CF catheters in patients with AF?

Structured PICO

Does atrial fibrillation ablation using contact force-sensing catheters reduce AF recurrence and major complications compared to standard non-CF catheters in patients with AF?

Population

Patients undergoing atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation (19 studies including randomized controlled trials and non-randomized observational studies)

Intervention

Atrial fibrillation ablation using contact force (CF)-sensing catheters

Comparator

Atrial fibrillation ablation using standard non-CF (NCF)-sensing catheters

Outcome

Atrial fibrillation recurrence within 12 monthshard clinical

Contact force-sensing catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation reduces the incidence of major complications and AF recurrence at 12 months compared to standard non-CF catheters.

Implication

Supports CF-sensing catheter preference in AF ablation to lower recurrence; confirms meta-analytic superiority over non-CF catheters.

Abstract

Contact force (CF) monitoring can be useful in accomplishing circumferential pulmonary vein (PV) isolation for atrial fibrillation (AF). This meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of a CF-sensing catheter in treating AF. Randomized controlled trials or non-randomized observational studies comparing AF ablation using CF-sensing or standard non-CF (NCF)-sensing catheters were identified from PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Wanfang Data, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (January 1, 1998-2016). A total of 19 studies were included. The primary efficacy endpoint was AF recurrence within 12 months, which significantly improved using CF-sensing catheters compared with using NCF-sensing catheters [31.1% vs. 40.5%; risk ratio (RR)=0.82; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.73-0.93; p<0.05]. Further, the acute PV reconnection (10.1% vs. 24.2%; RR=0.45; 95% CI, 0.32-0.63; p<0.05) and incidence of major complications (1.8% vs. 3.1%; OR=0.59; 95% CI, 0.37-0.95; p<0.05) significantly improved using CF-sensing catheters compared with using NCF-sensing catheters. Procedure parameters such as procedure duration [mean difference (MD)=-28.35; 95% CI, -39.54 to -17.16; p<0.05], ablation time (MD=-3.8; 95% CI, -6.6 to -1.0; p<0.05), fluoroscopy duration (MD=-8.18; 95% CI, -14.11 to -2.24; p<0.05), and radiation dose (standard MD=-0.75; 95% CI, -1.32 to -0.18; p<0.05] significantly reduced using CF-sensing catheters. CF-sensing catheter ablation of AF can reduce the incidence of major complications and generate better outcomes compared with NCF-sensing catheters during the 12-month follow-up period.