We have located links that may give you full text access.
Efficacy and safety comparison between different types of novel design enhanced open-irrigated ablation catheters in creating cavo-tricuspid isthmus block.
Journal of Cardiology 2018 May
BACKGROUND: Clinical utility of irrigation-tip ablation catheters for cavo-tricuspid isthmus (CTI) ablation is established. Recently, new-generation enhanced-cooling irrigation-tip catheters were introduced into clinical use. This study compared the performance of different types of novel irrigation-tip catheters in CTI ablation.
METHODS: One hundred patients undergoing CTI ablation with novel irrigated-tip catheters were included. Ablation was performed with a power output of 30-35W using either 4-mm flexible tip catheters [FlexAbility (FAs) St. Jude Medical, St. Paul, MN, USA] or 3.5-mm enhanced-cooling ring-tip catheters without [ThermoCool SurroundFlow (SFs), Biosense Webster, Diamond Bar, CA, USA] and with contact force sensing [ThermoCool SmartTouch SurroundFlow (STSFs), Biosense Webster] in 32, 34, and 34 patients, respectively.
RESULTS: The successful CTI block creation rate was significantly higher for FAs than SFs/STSFs [32/32 (100%), 30/34 (88.2%), and 27/34 (79.4%), p=0.006]. In all 11 failed procedures, block was created by additional 5 (2-7) applications with 8-mm tip catheters. The radiofrequency (RF) application number (p=0.001) and energy (p=0.021) were significantly lower, and total RF time (p=0.005) and procedure time (p=0.036) significantly shorter in the FA than SF/STSF groups. The FA catheter was associated with significantly higher tip temperature readings (34.9°C vs. 32.0/33.0°C, p<0.001) and lower initial impedances than SF/STSF catheters (both p<0.001). The tip temperature reached the maximum temperature setting in 15/295 (5.1%) FA catheter applications among 11 (34.3%) patients, 0/521 (0%) ST applications, and 0/448 (0%) STSF applications. The mean RF power achieved during RF applications was significantly lower for FA than SF/STSF catheters (28.6W vs. 30.4/30.8W, p<0.001). Audible steam pops were detected in 1/448 applications in only the STSF group.
CONCLUSIONS: In human CTI ablation, flexible irrigation-tip catheters showed a significantly better performance than rigid enhanced-cooling irrigation-tip catheters.
METHODS: One hundred patients undergoing CTI ablation with novel irrigated-tip catheters were included. Ablation was performed with a power output of 30-35W using either 4-mm flexible tip catheters [FlexAbility (FAs) St. Jude Medical, St. Paul, MN, USA] or 3.5-mm enhanced-cooling ring-tip catheters without [ThermoCool SurroundFlow (SFs), Biosense Webster, Diamond Bar, CA, USA] and with contact force sensing [ThermoCool SmartTouch SurroundFlow (STSFs), Biosense Webster] in 32, 34, and 34 patients, respectively.
RESULTS: The successful CTI block creation rate was significantly higher for FAs than SFs/STSFs [32/32 (100%), 30/34 (88.2%), and 27/34 (79.4%), p=0.006]. In all 11 failed procedures, block was created by additional 5 (2-7) applications with 8-mm tip catheters. The radiofrequency (RF) application number (p=0.001) and energy (p=0.021) were significantly lower, and total RF time (p=0.005) and procedure time (p=0.036) significantly shorter in the FA than SF/STSF groups. The FA catheter was associated with significantly higher tip temperature readings (34.9°C vs. 32.0/33.0°C, p<0.001) and lower initial impedances than SF/STSF catheters (both p<0.001). The tip temperature reached the maximum temperature setting in 15/295 (5.1%) FA catheter applications among 11 (34.3%) patients, 0/521 (0%) ST applications, and 0/448 (0%) STSF applications. The mean RF power achieved during RF applications was significantly lower for FA than SF/STSF catheters (28.6W vs. 30.4/30.8W, p<0.001). Audible steam pops were detected in 1/448 applications in only the STSF group.
CONCLUSIONS: In human CTI ablation, flexible irrigation-tip catheters showed a significantly better performance than rigid enhanced-cooling irrigation-tip catheters.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices 
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app