Key result
Open-irrigated catheter use linked to ~12% higher acute ablation success, primarily in AVRT patients.
Why the study?
Comparative evidence regarding substrate-specific outcomes with open-irrigated versus non-irrigated catheters for SVT ablation remains limited.
Does the use of open-irrigated catheters reduce recurrence and improve acute ablation success compared to non-irrigated catheters in patients undergoing first-time ablation for AVRT and AVNRT?
Cohort (n=302)
Does the use of open-irrigated catheters reduce recurrence and improve acute ablation success compared to non-irrigated catheters in patients undergoing first-time ablation for AVRT and AVNRT?
Relative Risk: 1.12 (95% CI 1.05–1.2)
Absolute Event Rate: 92% vs 81.5%
p-value: p=0.001
Open-irrigated catheters significantly improve acute ablation success and reduce 24-month recurrence rates compared to non-irrigated catheters during first-time SVT ablation, specifically for AVRT.
May support irrigated catheters for AVRT ablation; hypothesis-generating and requires prospective validation before practice change.
BACKGROUND: Open-irrigated catheters (OIC) provide improved cooling, deeper lesion formation, and enhanced safety during radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA). However, comparative evidence regarding substrate-specific outcomes with OIC versus non-irrigated catheters (NIC) for supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) remains limited. This study compared acute ablation success (AAS) and recurrence after first-time RFCA using OIC versus NIC, with particular emphasis on differential outcomes in atrioventricular re-entrant tachycardia (AVRT) and atrioventricular re-entrant tachycardia (AVNRT). METHODS: A retrospective cohort of consecutive patients undergoing first-time RFCA for AVNRT or AVRT between 2017 and 2023 was analyzed. Patients were categorized by catheter type (OIC vs. NIC). Primary outcomes were AAS and SVT recurrence during 24-month follow-up. Multivariate logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards models were used for adjusted analyses. Subgroup analyses were performed for AVNRT and AVRT. RESULTS: Among 302 procedures, OIC were used in 113 (37.4%). Overall AAS was achieved in 85.4% of cases (92.0% OIC vs. 81.5% NIC; p = 0.012). Recurrence occurred in 17.9% (7.1% OIC vs. 24.3% NIC; p < 0.001). In multivariable analyses, OIC use was independently associated with higher AAS (adjusted RR 1.12; 95% CI 1.05-1.20; p = 0.001) and lower recurrence (adjusted HR 0.24; 95% CI 0.12-0.52; p < 0.001). In the AVRT subgroup, OIC use was associated with higher AAS (89.9% vs. 76.6%; p = 0.014) and lower recurrence (adjusted HR 0.25; 95% CI 0.11-0.57; p < 0.001), whereas no significant differences were observed in AVNRT. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort, OIC use was associated with higher AAS and lower recurrence, with the favorable association primarily observed in AVRT rather than AVNRT. These findings support further evaluation of substrate-specific catheter selection, particularly for accessory pathway ablation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Duarte‐Sau et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in AVNRT or AVRT (n=302). Open-irrigated catheters (OIC) vs. Non-irrigated catheters (NIC) was evaluated on Acute ablation success (AAS) (RR 1.12, 95% CI 1.05-1.20, p=0.001). Open-irrigated catheter use was associated with higher acute ablation success (92.0% vs 81.5%; RR 1.12) and lower recurrence (7.1% vs 24.3%; HR 0.24), primarily in AVRT patients.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: