Contact force facilitates the achievement of an unexcitable ablation line during pulmonary vein isolation

被引:11
|
作者
Schaeffer, Benjamin [1 ]
Willems, Stephan [1 ]
Meyer, Christian [1 ]
Lueker, Jakob [2 ]
Akbulak, Ruken O. [1 ]
Moser, Julia [1 ]
Jularic, Mario [1 ]
Eickholt, Christian [1 ]
Schwarzl, Jana M. [1 ]
Gunawardene, Melanie [1 ]
Kuklik, Pawel [1 ]
Sultan, Arian [2 ]
Hoffmann, Boris A. [3 ]
Steven, Daniel [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Hosp Hamburg, Univ Heart Ctr, Dept Cardiol Electrophysiol, Martinistr 52, D-20246 Hamburg, Germany
[2] Univ Hosp Cologne, Dept Cardiol Electrophysiol, Cologne, Germany
[3] Univ Hosp Mainz, Dept Cardiol Electrophysiol, Mainz, Germany
关键词
Ablation; Paroxysmal atrial fibrillation; Pulmonary vein isolation; Contact force; Unexcitability; LEFT ATRIAL ABLATION; CATHETER ABLATION; RADIOFREQUENCY ABLATION; PACE CAPTURE; SENSING TECHNOLOGY; FIBRILLATION; RECONNECTION; SYSTEM; PREDICTION; CONDUCTION;
D O I
10.1007/s00392-018-1228-0
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Aims Contact force (CF) catheters provide catheter-tissue contact information to improve outcome of pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) in paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF). We evaluated different target-CF values for achievement of the additional endpoint of an unexcitable ablation line. Methods A total of 106 patients undergoing PVI were randomized into three groups (G) (G1: target-CF 15 g, G2: target-CF 10 g, G3: CF concealed from operator). The PVI encircling line was divided into predefined sections. Excitable tissue along the PVI-line identified by high output pacing (10 V, 2 ms) was targeted for further ablation. Results Mean average CF was 17.4 +/- 4.7 g (G1) vs. 12.3 +/- 6.0 g (G2) vs. 11.1 +/- 6.5 g (G 3) (p < 0.001). Primary unexcitable ablation lines were found in 38.6, 19.4 and 5.7% (G1, G2, G3 respectively; G1 vs. G2 p < 0.05, G1 vs. G3 p < 0.001, G2 vs. G3 ns). Additional radiofrequency (RF)-energy to achieve unexcitability was lowest in G1 (3.6 +/- 3.1 kJ vs. 8.6 +/- 7.2 kJ (G2) and 10.4 +/- 6.7 (G3), p <= 0.001, G2 vs. G3 ns) with accordingly lowest additional RF applications in G1 (3.0 +/- 2.6 vs. 7.0 +/- 5.4 in G2 and 8.4 +/- 4.0 in G3; G1 vs. G2 and G3, p < 0.001, G 2 vs. G 3 ns). Sections along ablation lines with low initial CF were most likely to reveal excitability. Single procedure success was 81.9 vs. 73.5 vs. 71.4% (G 1, 2 and 3, p = 0.6) during 437 +/- 254 day follow-up. Conclusion Higher tip-to-tissue CF during PVI facilitates the achievement of an unexcitable ablation line, requiring less additional RF-energy.
引用
收藏
页码:632 / 641
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Regional Difference of Optimal Contact Force to Prevent Acute Pulmonary Vein Reconnection During Radiofrequency Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation
    Sotomi, Yohei
    Kikkawa, Takayuki
    Inoue, Koichi
    Tanaka, Koji
    Toyoshima, Yuko
    Oka, Takafumi
    Tanaka, Nobuaki
    Nozato, Yoichi
    Orihara, Yoshiyuki
    Iwakura, Katsuomi
    Sakata, Yasushi
    Fujii, Kenshi
    JOURNAL OF CARDIOVASCULAR ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, 2014, 25 (09) : 941 - 947
  • [22] Cryoballoon ablation for pulmonary vein isolation
    Andrade, Jason G.
    JOURNAL OF CARDIOVASCULAR ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, 2020, 31 (08) : 2128 - 2135
  • [23] Analysis of late reconnections after pulmonary vein isolation: Impact of interlesion contiguity and ablation index
    Pedrote, Alonso
    Acosta, Juan
    Frutos-Lopez, Manuel
    Jauregui-Garrido, Beatriz
    Alarcon, Francisco
    Arana-Rueda, Eduardo
    PACE-PACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, 2019, 42 (06): : 678 - 685
  • [24] What we have learned: is pulmonary vein isolation still the cornerstone of atrial fibrillation ablation?
    Metzner, Andreas
    Kuck, Karl-Heinz
    Chun, Julian K. R.
    EUROPACE, 2022, 24 (SUPPL 2): : 8 - 13
  • [25] Steerable versus non-steerable sheaths during pulmonary vein isolation: impact of left atrial enlargement on the catheter-tissue contact force
    Masuda, Masaharu
    Fujita, Masashi
    Iida, Osamu
    Okamoto, Shin
    Ishihara, Takayuki
    Nanto, Kiyonori
    Kanda, Takashi
    Shiraki, Tatsuya
    Sunaga, Akihiro
    Matsuda, Yasuhiro
    Uematsu, Masaaki
    JOURNAL OF INTERVENTIONAL CARDIAC ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, 2016, 47 (01) : 99 - 107
  • [26] Pace-capture-guided ablation after contact-force-guided pulmonary vein isolation: results of the randomized controlled DRAGON trial
    Masuda, Masaharu
    Fujita, Masashi
    Iida, Osamu
    Okamoto, Shin
    Ishihara, Takayuki
    Nanto, Kiyonori
    Kanda, Takashi
    Sunaga, Akihiro
    Tsujimura, Takuya
    Matsuda, Yasuhiro
    Ohashi, Takuya
    Uematsu, Masaaki
    EUROPACE, 2018, 20 (09): : 1451 - 1458
  • [27] A multicentered evaluation of ablation at higher power guided by ablation index: Establishing ablation targets for pulmonary vein isolation
    Dhillon, Gurpreet
    Ahsan, Syed
    Honarbakhsh, Shohreh
    Lim, Wei
    Baca, Marco
    Graham, Adam
    Srinivasan, Neil
    Sawhney, Vinit
    Sporton, Simon
    Schilling, Richard J.
    Chow, Anthony
    Ginks, Matthew
    Sohal, Manav
    Gallagher, Mark M.
    Hunter, Ross J.
    JOURNAL OF CARDIOVASCULAR ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, 2019, 30 (03) : 357 - 365
  • [28] Contact force and impedance decrease during ablation depends on catheter location and orientation: insights from pulmonary vein isolation using a contact force-sensing catheter
    Sven Knecht
    Tobias Reichlin
    Nikola Pavlovic
    Beat Schaer
    Stefan Osswald
    Christian Sticherling
    Michael Kühne
    Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology, 2015, 43 : 297 - 306
  • [29] Comparison of contact force-guided procedure with non-contact force-guided procedure during left atrial mapping and pulmonary vein isolation: impact of contact force on recurrence of atrial fibrillation
    Makimoto, Hisaki
    Heeger, Christian-H
    Lin, Tina
    Rillig, Andreas
    Metzner, Andreas
    Wissner, Erik
    Mathew, Shibu
    Deiss, Sebastian
    Rausch, Peter
    Lemes, Christine
    Kuck, Karl-Heinz
    Ouyang, Feifan
    Tilz, Roland Richard
    CLINICAL RESEARCH IN CARDIOLOGY, 2015, 104 (10) : 861 - 870
  • [30] Is the knowledge of contact force beneficial in pulmonary vein antrum isolation?
    Borregaard, Rune
    Jensen, Henrik Kjaerulf
    Tofig, Bawer Jalal
    Thrysoe, Samuel Alberg
    Gerdes, Christian
    Nielsen, Jens Cosedis
    Lukac, Peter
    SCANDINAVIAN CARDIOVASCULAR JOURNAL, 2017, 51 (03) : 129 - 137