The best of two worlds? Pulmonary vein isolation using a novel radiofrequency ablation catheter incorporating contact force sensing technology and 56-hole porous tip irrigation

Aims This study aimed to evaluate feasibility and safety as well as 1-year clinical outcome of pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) using a unique radiofrequency ablation catheter (“Thermocool SmartTouch SurroundFlow”; STSF) incorporating both, contact force (CF) sensing technology and enhanced tip irriga...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Clinical research in cardiology 2018-11, Vol.107 (11), p.1003-1012
Hauptverfasser: Maurer, Tilman, Rottner, Laura, Makimoto, Hisaki, Reissmann, Bruno, Heeger, Christian-H., Lemes, Christine, Fink, Thomas, Riedl, Johannes, Santoro, Francesco, Wohlmuth, Peter, Volkmer, Marius, Mathew, Shibu, Metzner, Andreas, Ouyang, Feifan, Kuck, Karl-Heinz, Sohns, Christian
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Aims This study aimed to evaluate feasibility and safety as well as 1-year clinical outcome of pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) using a unique radiofrequency ablation catheter (“Thermocool SmartTouch SurroundFlow”; STSF) incorporating both, contact force (CF) sensing technology and enhanced tip irrigation with 56 holes, in one device. Methods A total of 110 patients suffering from drug-refractory atrial fibrillation underwent wide area circumferential PVI using either the STSF ablation catheter (75 consecutive patients, study group) or a CF catheter with conventional tip irrigation (“Thermocool SmartTouch”, 35 consecutive patients, control group). For each ablation lesion, a target CF of ≥ 10–39 g and a force time integral (FTI) of > 400 g s was targeted. Results Acute PVI was achieved in all patients with target CF obtained in > 85% of ablation points when using either device. Mean procedure time (131.3 ± 33.7 min in the study group vs. 133.0 ± 42.0 min in the control group; p  = 0.99), mean fluoroscopy time (14.0 ± 6 vs. 13.5 ± 6.6 min; p  = 0.56) and total ablation time were not significantly different (1751.0 ± 394.0 vs. 1604.6 ± 287.8 s; p  = 0.2). However, there was a marked reduction in total irrigation fluid delivery by 51.7% (265.52 ± 64.4 vs. 539.6 ± 118.2 ml; p  
ISSN:1861-0684
1861-0692
DOI:10.1007/s00392-018-1270-y