Impact of computed tomography image and contact force technology on catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation

Applications of multimodality imaging for left atrial catheter ablation

Atrial arrhythmias, including atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter, may be treated through catheter ablation. The process of atrial arrhythmia catheter ablation, which includes patient selection, pre-procedural planning, intra-procedural guidance, and post-procedural assessment, is typically characterized by the use of several imaging modalities to sequentially inform key clinical decisions. Increasingly, advanced imaging modalities are processed via specialized image analysis techniques and combined with intra-procedural electrical measurements to inform treatment approaches. Here, we review the use of multimodality imaging for left atrial ablation procedures. The article first outlines how imaging modalities are routinely used in the peri-ablation period. We then describe how advanced imaging techniques may inform patient selection for ablation and ablation targets themselves. Ongoing research directions for improving catheter ablation outcomes by using imaging combined with advanced analyses for personalization of ablation targets are discussed, together with approaches for their integration in the standard clinical environment. Finally, we describe future research areas with the potential to improve catheter ablation outcomes.

Updated systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of contact force sensing on the safety and efficacy of atrial fibrillation ablation: discrepancy between observational studies and randomized control trial data

Aims

Despite widespread adoption of contact force (CF) sensing technology in atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation, randomized data suggests lack of improvement in clinical outcomes. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of CF-guided vs. non CF-guided AF ablation.

Methods and results

Electronic databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled observational studies (OS) comparing outcomes of AF ablation performed with vs. without CF guidance. The primary efficacy endpoint was freedom from AF at follow-up. The primary safety endpoint was major peri-procedural complications. Secondary endpoints included procedural, fluoroscopy, and ablation duration. Subgroup analyses were performed by AF type and study design. Nine RCTs (n = 903) and 26 OS (n = 8919) were included. Overall, CF guidance was associated with improved freedom from AF [relative risk (RR) 1.10; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02-1.18], and reduced total procedure duration [mean difference (MD) 15.33 min; 95% CI 6.98-23.68], ablation duration (MD 3.07 min; 95% CI 0.29-5.84), and fluoroscopy duration (MD 5.72 min; 95% CI 2.51-8.92). When restricted to RCTs however, CF guidance neither improved freedom from AF (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.95-1.11), independent of AF type, nor did it reduce procedural, fluoroscopy, or ablation duration. Contact force guidance did not reduce the incidence of major peri-procedural complications (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.64-1.24).

Conclusion

Meta-analysis of randomized data demonstrated that CF guidance does not improve the safety or efficacy of AF ablation, despite initial observational data showing dramatic improvement. Rigorous evaluation in randomized trials is needed before widespread adoption of new technologies.

Atrial fibrillation ablation with a spring sensor-irrigated contact force-sensing catheter compared with other ablation catheters: systematic literature review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

The objective of our review was to systematically assess available evidence on the effectiveness, safety and efficiency of a spring sensor-irrigated contact force (CF) catheter (THERMOCOOL SMARTTOUCH Catheter (ST)) for percutaneous ablation of paroxysmal or persistent atrial fibrillation (AF), compared with other ablation catheters, or with the ST with the operator blinded to CF data.

DESIGN

Systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND

Emerging evidence suggests improved clinical outcomes of AF ablation using CF-sensing catheters; however, reviews to date have included data from multiple, distinct CF technologies.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies comparing the use of ST versus other ablation catheters for the treatment of AF. A comprehensive search of electronic and manual sources was conducted. The primary endpoint was freedom from recurrent atrial tachyarrhythmia (AT) at 12 months. Procedural and safety data were also analysed.

RESULTS

Thirty-four studies enrolling 5004 patients were eligible. The use of ST was associated with increased odds of freedom from AT at 12 months (71.0%vs60.8%; OR 1.454, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.88, p=0.004) over the comparator group, and the effect size was most evident in paroxysmal AF patients (75.6%vs64.7%; OR 1.560, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.24, p=0.015). Procedure and fluoroscopy times were shorter with ST (p=0.05 and p<0.01, respectively, vs comparator groups). The reduction in procedure time is estimated at 15.5 min (9.0%), and fluoroscopy time 4.8 min (18.7%). Complication rates, including cardiac tamponade, did not differ between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with the use of other catheters, AF ablation using the CF-sensing ST catheter for AF is associated with improved success rates, shorter procedure and fluoroscopy times and similar safety profile.