Key result
QDOT MICRO catheter causes artifactual contact force rises in ~76% of high-power applications versus SmartTouch SF.
Why the study?
The potential for an artifactual rise in contact force during radiofrequency ablation, particularly comparing the QDOT MICRO and Thermocool SmartTouch SF catheters, remains poorly understood.
Does the QDOT MICRO catheter exhibit a higher occurrence and magnitude of artifactual contact force rise compared to the Thermocool SmartTouch SF catheter during non-contact radiofrequency delivery testing in patients undergoing right atrial ablation?
Observational (n=135)
Does the QDOT MICRO catheter exhibit a higher occurrence and magnitude of artifactual contact force rise compared to the Thermocool SmartTouch SF catheter during non-contact radiofrequency delivery testing in patients undergoing right atrial ablation?
The QDOT MICRO catheter demonstrates a significant power-dependent artifactual rise in contact force during non-contact radiofrequency delivery, highlighting the potential utility of preprocedural non-contact testing to identify catheter-specific contact force instability.
QDOT MICRO contact force readings warrant caution at high power; supports catheter-specific validation studies before routine adoption.
Introduction Contact force (CF)‐sensing technology ensures effective lesion formation and safety during radiofrequency (RF) ablation; however, the potential for an artifactual rise in CF, a false elevation not attributed to physical contact, remains poorly understood. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the occurrence and magnitude of artifactual CF rise between the QDOT MICRO catheter (QMc) and the Thermocool SmartTouch SF catheter (STSFc) using a non‐contact RF delivery (NCRD) test. Methods and Results We retrospectively analyzed 135 patients who underwent NCRD testing in the right atrium (QMc, n = 93; STSFc, n = 42). The NCRD test was performed in a blood pool without tissue contact at power settings of 90, 50, and 40 W for QMc and 50 and 40 W for STSFc. The magnitude and incidence of CF rise (≥ 5 and ≥ 10 g) were compared. In the QMc group, a significant power‐dependent increase in CF was observed: 9 g (IQR: 5–12 g) at 90 W, 3 g (IQR: 1–10 g) at 50 W, and 2 g (IQR: 1–3 g) at 40 W ( p < 0.001). At 90 W, the incidence of CF rise ≥ 5 g was 76%, and that of CF rise ≥ 10 g was 46%, significantly higher than at lower settings. In contrast, the STSFc group exhibited stable CF measurements with no instances of CF rise ≥ 5 g. QMc also showed significant power‐dependent elevation in electrode temperature. Conclusion QMc exhibited significant power‐dependent artifactual CF rise. These findings suggest that catheter‐specific design and thermal effects may influence CF stability during RF delivery. Preprocedural NCRD tests may help identify catheter‐specific CF instability before CF‐guided ablation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Makita et al. (2026) conducted an observational in Patients undergoing radiofrequency ablation with non-contact RF delivery testing in the right atrium (n=135). QDOT MICRO catheter (QMc) vs. Thermocool SmartTouch SF catheter (STSFc) at 50 and 40 W was evaluated on Incidence and magnitude of artifactual contact force rise (≥ 5 g and ≥ 10 g) during non-contact RF delivery (p=<0.001). The QDOT MICRO catheter showed significant power-dependent artifactual contact force rise (76% ≥5 g at 90 W; p<0.001), whereas the Thermocool SmartTouch SF catheter had 0% rise ≥5 g.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: