4.4 Article

The relationship between contact force and clinical outcome during radiofrequency catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation in the TOCCATA study

Journal

HEART RHYTHM
Volume 9, Issue 11, Pages 1789-1795

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2012.07.016

Keywords

Ablation; Atrial fibrillation; Catheter ablation; Supraventricular tachycardia; Contact force

Funding

  1. Endosense SA
  2. St Jude Medical and Endosense

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND The clinical efficacy of catheter ablation of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF) remains limited by difficulty in achieving durable pulmonary vein isolation (PVI). Suboptimal catheter tip-to-tissue contact force (CF) during lesion delivery is believed to reduce clinical efficacy. OBJECTIVE To determine the relationship between catheter CF during irrigated catheter ablation for AF and clinical recurrences during follow-up. METHODS Thirty-two patients with paroxysmal AF underwent PVI by using a radiofrequency ablation catheter with a CF sensor integrated at its tip, and they were followed for 12 months. The relationship between the CF and clinical outcomes was determined. RESULTS Acute PVI was achieved in 100% of the veins. Thirty-five percent (351 of 1017) of the applications were placed with an average CF of <10 g (low CF). All patients treated with an average CF of <10 g (5 of 5 patients) experienced recurrences, whereas 80% of the patients treated with an average CF of >20 g (8 of 10 patients) were free from AF recurrence at 12 months. The analysis of the average force-time integral showed that 75% of the patients treated with <500 gs were recurrent whereas only 31% of the patients treated with >1000 gs had recurrences at 12 months. CONCLUSIONS The CF during catheter ablation for AF correlates with clinical outcome. Arrhythmia control is best achieved when ablation lesions are placed with an average CF of >20 g, and clinical failure is universally noted with an average CF of <10 g.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available