Porous tip contact force–sensing catheters for pulmonary vein isolation: performance in a clinical routine setting

Comparisons of procedural characteristics and clinical outcomes between SMARTTOUCH SURROUNDFLOW catheter and other catheters for atrial fibrillation radiofrequency catheter ablation: a systematic literature review

BACKGROUND

SMARTTOUCH SURROUNDFLOW (STSF) catheter is the new generation of SMARTTOUCH (ST) catheter with an upgraded irrigation system for radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF).

METHODS

This systematic literature review searched the major English and Chinese bibliographic databases from 2016 to 2022 for any original clinical studies assessing the STSF catheter for RFCA in AF patients. Meta-analysis with a random effects model was used for evidence synthesis.

RESULTS

Pooled outcomes from 19 included studies indicated that STSF catheter was associated with a significantly shorter procedure time (weighted mean difference (WMD): -17.4 min, p<0.001), shorter ablation time (WMD: -6.6 min, p<0.001) and lower catheter irrigation fluid volume (WMD: -492.7 mL, p<0.001) than ST catheter. Pooled outcomes from four included studies with paroxysmal AF patients reported that using the STSF catheter for RFCA was associated with a significantly shorter ablation time (WMD: -5.7 min, p<0.001) and a lower risk of 1-year postablation arrhythmia recurrence (rate ratio: 0.504, p<0.001) than the SURROUNDFLOW (SF) catheter. Significant reductions in procedure time and ablation time associated with the STSF catheter were also reported in the other four studies using non-ST/SF catheters as the control. Overall complications of STSF catheter and control catheters were comparable.

CONCLUSIONS

Using the STSF catheter was superior to using the ST catheter to conduct RFCA for AF by significantly reducing procedure time, ablation time, fluoroscopy time and irrigation fluid volume. The superiority of the STSF catheter over the SF catheter and other non-ST/SF catheters for RFCA needs further confirmation.

Porous tip radiofrequency ablation catheter reduced heart failure-related complications and healthcare resource utilization in paroxysmal atrial fibrillation patients

Introduction

A 56-hole porous tip radiofrequency catheter was developed to provide more uniform cooling with less fluid delivery than a prior 6-hole irrigated design. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of contact force (CF) ablation with the porous tip on complications (congestive heart failure [CHF] and non-CHF related), healthcare resource utilization, and procedural efficiency in patients undergoing de novo paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF) ablations in a real-world setting.

Methods

Consecutive de novo PAF ablations were performed between February 2014 and March 2019 by six operators at a single US academic center. The 6-hole design was used through December 2016 with the 56-hole porous tip adopted in October 2016. The outcomes of interest included symptomatic CHF presentation and CHF-related complications.

Results

Of 174 patients who were included, mean age was 61.1 ± 10.8 years, 67.8% were male, and 25.3% had a history of CHF. Ablation with the porous tip catheter significantly decreased fluid delivery (1177 vs. 1912 mL with the 6-hole design; p < .0001). CHF-related complications within 7 days, particularly fluid overload, were substantially reduced with the porous tip (15.2% vs. 5.3% of patients; p = .0281) and the proportion of patients with symptomatic CHF presentation within 30 days postablation was significantly lower (14.7% vs. 32.5%; p = .0058).

Conclusion

The 56-hole porous tip led to significantly reduced CHF-related complications and healthcare utilization in PAF patients undergoing CF catheter ablation when compared to the prior 6-hole design. This reduction likely results from the significant decrease in fluid delivery during the procedure.

Procedural Efficiency, Efficacy, and Safety of High-Power, Short-Duration Radiofrequency Ablation Delivered by STSF Catheter for Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation

Objectives

To investigate the procedural efficiency, efficacy, and safety of high-power, short-term radiofrequency ablation delivered by the SmartTouch Surround Flow (STSF) catheter for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF).

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed a total of 72 patients who were admitted with paroxysmal AF, and who underwent radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA) for the first time. Of these patients, 36 cases underwent low-power, long-duration (LPLD, (30–35 W/20–40 s) pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) delivered by an SmartTouch (ST) catheter (control group), and the other 36 cases underwent high-power, short-duration (HPSD, (45–50 W/10–20 s) PVI delivered by a STSF catheter (study group). The baseline data, duration of PVI, procedural time, fluoroscopy time, the rate of first-pass isolation, irrigation perfusion, eschar and steam pop occurrences, intraoperative complications, and the rate of stable sinus rhythm maintenance following a blanking period of three months were analyzed between the two groups.

Results

The isolation time of bilateral PVI and procedural time in the study group were markedly less than in controls (p < 0.01). The rate of first-pass isolation in the study group was significantly higher than in the control group (95.8% vs. 84.7%, p = 0.023), while the fluid perfusion in the study group was approximately 20% less than that in the control group (767 ± 171 vs. 966 ± 227 ml, p < 0.001). We observed no severe complications in any patients. The rate of freedom from AF recurrences following a blanking period of three months showed a tendency to be higher than in controls (93.9% vs. 87.1%, p = 0.348).

Conclusions

The HPSD strategy delivered by the STSF catheter was superior to conventional LPLD ablation through the ST catheter with respect to efficiency, acute procedural effectiveness, short-term safety, and the risk of heart failure in patients with paroxysmal AF.

Atrial fibrillation ablation with advanced radiofrequency catheter versus second-generation cryoballoon catheter

Aim: To compare cost and readmissions among atrial fibrillation (AF) patients undergoing ablation using the THERMOCOOL SMARTTOUCH™ SF (STSF) radiofrequency catheter versus the Arctic Front Advance™ (AFA) cryoballoon catheter. Patients & methods: The Premier Healthcare Database was used for the study purposes. Propensity score matching was used to match patients in the two groups. Costs and readmissions were assessed. A regression model was used for outcome assessment. Results: After propensity matching, 2767 patients were identified in each of the STSF and AFA cohorts. In the matched cohort, STSF patients had significantly lower supply costs than AFA patients. STSF patients had significantly lower 4-12-month AF-related inpatient readmissions compared with AFA patients (2.58% vs 3.99%; p = 0.0402). Costs of care summing index procedure and readmission costs were also lower for the STSF patients versus AFA patients. Conclusions: Patients who underwent AF ablation using the STSF catheter versus the AFA catheter had lower cost and AF-related readmissions.

Safety and efficacy of high power shorter duration ablation for atrial fibrillation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Radiofrequency ablation in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) is effective but hampered by pulmonary veins reconnection because of insufficient lesions. High power shorter duration ablation (HPSD) was seen to increase efficacy and safety. This analysis aimed to evaluate the clinical benefits of HPSD in patients with AF.

METHODS

The Medline, PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched for studies comparing HPSD and Low power longer duration (LPLD) ablation.

RESULTS

A total of seven trials with 2023 patients were included in the analysis. Pooled analyses demonstrated that HPSD showed a benefit of first-pass pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) [risk ratio (RR): 1.27; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.18-1.37, P < .001]. HPSD could reduce recurrence of atrial arrhythmias (RR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.50-0.98, P = .04). Additionally, HPSD was more beneficial in terms of procedural time [Weighted Mean Difference, (WMD): -44.62; 95% CI, -63.00 to -26.23, P < .001], ablation time (WMD: -21.25; 95% CI: -25.36 to -17.13, P < .001), and fluoroscopy time (WMD: -4.13; 95% CI: -7.52 to -0.74, P < .001). Moreover, major complications and esophageal thermal injury (ETI) were similar between two groups (RR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.44-1.30, P = .31) and (RR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.17-2.39, P = .51).

CONCLUSION

HPSD was safe and efficient for treating AF with clear advantages of procedural features, it also showed benefits of higher first-pass PVI and reducing recurrence of atrial arrhythmias compared with the LPLD. Moreover, major complications and ETI were similar between two groups.

Procedure characteristics and outcomes of atrial fibrillation ablation procedures using cryoballoon versus radiofrequency ablation: A report from the GWTG-AFIB registry

INTRODUCTION

Cryoballoon ablation (CBA) is an alternative to radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) and real-world comparisons of this strategy are lacking. As such, we sought to compare patient and periprocedural characteristics and outcomes of CBA versus RFA in the Get With the Guidelines AFIB Registry.

METHODS

Categorical variables were compared via the χ² test and continuous variables were compared via the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Adjusted analyses were performed using overlap weighting of propensity scores.

RESULTS

A total of 5247 (1465 CBA, 3782 RFA) ablation procedures were reported from 33 sites. Those undergoing CBA more often had paroxysmal AF (60.0% vs. 48.8%) and no prior AF ablation (87.5% vs. 73.8%). CHA₂ DS₂ -VASc scores were similar. Among de novo ablations, most ablations involved intracardiac echocardiography and electroanatomic mapping, but both were less common with CBA (87.3% vs. 93.9%, p < .0001, and 87.7% vs. 94.6%, p < .0001, respectively). CBA was associated with shorter procedures (129 vs. 179 min, p < .0001), increased fluoroscopy use (19 vs. 11 min, p < .0001), and similar ablation times (27 vs. 35 min, p = .15). Nonpulmonary vein ablation was common with CBA: roof line 38.6%, floor line 20.4%, cavotricuspid isthmus 27.7%. RFA was associated with more total complications compared to CBA (5.4% vs. 2.3%, p < .0001), due to more volume overload and "other" events, although phrenic nerve injury was more common with CBA (0.9% vs 0.1%, p = .0001). In the adjusted model, any complication was less common among CBA cases (odds ratio, 0.45; confidence interval, 0.25-0.79, p = .0056).

CONCLUSION

CBA was associated with fewer complications, and shorter procedure times, and greater fluoroscopy times, compared to RFA. Nonpulmonary vein ablation and electroanatomic mapping system use was common with CBA.

Comparison of high-power short-duration and low-power long-duration radiofrequency ablation for treating atrial fibrillation: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

High power shorter duration (HPSD) ablation seen to increase efficacy and safety treating of atrial fibrillation (AF); however, comparative data between HPSD and low power longer duration (LPLD) ablation are limited.

Hypothesis

We thought that HPSD might bring more clinical benefits. The aim of this meta‐analysis was to evaluate the clinical benefits of HPSD in patients with AF.

Methods

The Medline, PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched for studies comparing HPSD and LPLD ablation.

Results

Ten trials with 2467 patients were included in the analysis. Pooled analyses demonstrated that HPSD showed a benefit of first‐pass pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) (risk ratio [RR]: 1.20; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.10‐1.31, P < .001) and recurrence of atrial arrhythmias (RR: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.58‐0.91, P = .005). Additionally, HPSD could reduce procedural time (weighted mean difference [WMD]: −42.93; 95% CI, −58.10 to −27.75, P < .001), ablation time (WMD: −21.01; 95% CI: −24.55 to −17.47, P < .001), and fluoroscopy time (WMD: −4.11; 95% CI: −6.78 to −1.45, P < .001). Moreover, major complications and esophageal thermal injury (ETI) were similar between two groups (RR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.44‐1.30, P = .31) and (RR: 0.57; 95% CI: 0.21‐1.51, P = .26).

Conclusions

HPSD was safe and efficient for treating AF. Compared with LPLD, HPSD was associated with advantages of procedural features, higher first‐pass PVI and reducing recurrence of atrial arrhythmias. Moreover, major complications and ETI were similar between two groups.

Safety and efficacy of the ThermoCool SmartTouch SurroundFlow catheter for atrial fibrillation ablation: A meta-analysis

Background

The ThermoCool Smarttouch Surroundflow catheter (STSFc) is an advanced catheter, which integrating contact force sensing and surroundflow technology. However, comparative data between STSFc and contact force sensing catheter (Thermocool SmartTouch catheter [STc]) are limited.

Hypothesis

We thought that STSFc might bring more clinical benefits. The aim of this meta‐analysis was to compare the safety and efficiency between the STSFc and the STc for treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF).

Methods

The Medline, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for studies comparing STSFc and STc.

Results

Four trials involving 727 patients were included in the study. Pool‐analyses demonstrated that, as compared STc ablation, STSFc ablation was more beneficial in terms of procedural times (standard mean difference [SMD]: −0.22; 95% confidence interval [CI], −0.37 to −0.07, P = .005) and irrigation fluid volume (SMD: −1.94; 95% CI, −2.65 to −1.22, P < .0001). There was no significant difference between STSFc and STc (risk ratio [RR]: 1.02; 95% CI: 0.86 to 1.21, P = .79) for free from AF. Evidence of complications were low and similar for both groups (RR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.19‐3.55, P = .80). Additionally, patients administered STSFc ablation tended to have shorter fluoroscopic times (SMD: −0.20; 95% CI, −0.63‐0.23, P = .21).

Conclusions

STSFc ablation was associated with reducing procedural times and irrigation fluid volume. Further, STSFc ablation tended to shorten fluoroscopic times. Therefore, STSFc ablation would be a better choice for AF patients especially in patients with heart failure.