Deubner N, Greiss H, Akkaya E, Berkowitsch A, Zaltsberg S, Hamm C W, Kuniss M, Neumann T
Electrophysiology Department, Kerckhoff Heart Centre, Benekestr. 2-6, 61231, Bad Nauheim, Germany.
J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2016 Oct;47(1):75-82. doi: 10.1007/s10840-016-0128-3. Epub 2016 Mar 31.
Lesion formation is a critical determinant of technical and clinical success of pulmonary vein isolation. Different catheter designs aim to enhance tissue contact during ablation to enable optimized lesion formation. We analyzed procedural characteristics and predictors of clinical success in patients ablated with three different contemporary ablation catheters.
Two hundred sixty-eight sequentially included patients receiving pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) with conventional (n = 122), contact-force (n = 96) and flexible-tip (n = 60) catheters were followed for a median of 14.1 months with 7d-Holter-monitoring and TTE at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months. Baseline characteristics and follow-up times were homogeneous across all groups.
Multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression for arrhythmia recurrence demonstrated a favorable hazard ratio for contact-force and flexible-tip catheters vs. conventional open irrigation catheters. Procedure time and fluoroscopy time were shorter for contact-force and flexible-tip catheters versus conventional catheters, but equal between. Linear lesions were applied in 58 % of contact-force and 66 % of flexible-tip cases, and CFAEs were targeted in 26 % of either.
Our non-randomized prospectively collected data do not show a difference in observed procedure characteristics and in clinical outcome for flexible-tip versus contact-force catheter designs, while both display improved performance against conventional open irrigated-tip catheters. Linear lesions and CFAEs ablation were not associated with improved arrhythmia-free survival.
病灶形成是肺静脉隔离术技术和临床成功的关键决定因素。不同的导管设计旨在增强消融过程中的组织接触,以实现优化的病灶形成。我们分析了使用三种不同当代消融导管进行消融的患者的手术特征和临床成功的预测因素。
连续纳入268例接受肺静脉隔离(PVI)的患者,分别使用传统导管(n = 122)、接触力导管(n = 96)和软头导管(n = 60),采用7天动态心电图监测,并在3、6、12和24个月时进行经胸超声心动图检查,随访时间中位数为14.1个月。所有组的基线特征和随访时间均相同。
心律失常复发的多变量Cox比例风险回归显示,接触力导管和软头导管与传统开放式灌注导管相比,具有良好的风险比。接触力导管和软头导管的手术时间和透视时间比传统导管短,但两者之间相等。58%的接触力导管病例和66%的软头导管病例应用了线性病灶,两种导管中26%的病例靶向了房颤消融终点。
我们前瞻性收集的非随机数据显示,软头导管与接触力导管设计在观察到的手术特征和临床结果方面没有差异,而两者与传统开放式灌注头导管相比均表现出更好的性能。线性病灶和房颤消融终点与无心律失常生存率的改善无关。