Which is the best catheter to perform atrial fibrillation ablation? A comparison between standard ThermoCool, SmartTouch, and Surround Flow catheters

Sciarra, Luigi; Golia, Paolo; Natalizia, Andrea; Ruvo, Ermenegildo De; Dottori, Serena; Scarà, Antonio; Borrelli, Alessio; Luca, Lucia De; Rebecchi, Marco; Fagagnini, Alessandro; Bandini, Alberto; Guarracini, Fabrizio; Galvani, Marcello; Calò, Leonardo

doi:10.1007/s10840-014-9874-2

Cited by 30 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…An increasing body of evidence has suggested that the use of CF‐sensing technology for AF ablation results in improved outcomes, but the published reports have been primarily in paroxysmal AF . The observations of shorter procedural times and lower radiation exposure with the use of CF‐sensing catheters have been consistent in published reports and are of importance for both the patients and operators.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 71%

Persistent Atrial Fibrillation Ablation With or Without Contact Force Sensing

Hussein

Barakat

Saliba

et al. 2017

Cardiovasc electrophysiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 71%

Persistent Atrial Fibrillation Ablation With or Without Contact Force Sensing

Hussein

Barakat

Saliba

et al. 2017

Cardiovasc electrophysiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A thorough literature search resulted in 967 items (886 from electronic databases and 81 from other resources). Eleven studies (2 randomized controlled trials and 9 cohorts) were identified that compared the safety and efficacy of guided CF and CC in the setting of AF ablation . The studies met all applied inclusion criteria of this meta‐analysis.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of Contact Force Technology on Atrial Fibrillation Ablation: A Meta‐Analysis

Shurrab

Biase

Briceño

et al. 2015

JAHA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundCatheter–tissue contact is essential for effective lesion formation, thus there is growing usage of contact force (CF) technology in atrial fibrillation ablation. We conducted a meta-analysis to assess the impact of CF on clinical outcomes and procedural parameters in comparison to conventional catheter for atrial fibrillation ablation.Methods and ResultsAn electronic search was performed using major databases. Outcomes of interest were recurrence rate, major complications, total procedure, and fluoroscopic times. Continuous variables were reported as standardized mean difference; odds ratios were reported for dichotomous variables. Eleven studies (2 randomized controlled studies and 9 cohorts) involving 1428 adult patients were identified. CF was deployed in 552 patients. The range of CF used was between 2 to 60 gram-force. The follow-up period ranged between 10 and 53 weeks. In comparing CF and conventional catheter groups, the recurrence rate was lower with CF (35.1% versus 45.5%, odds ratio 0.62 [95% CI 0.45–0.86], P=0.004). Shorter procedure and fluoroscopic times were achieved with CF (procedure time: 156 versus 173 minutes, standardized mean difference −0.85 [95% CI −1.48 to −0.21], P=0.009; fluoroscopic time: 28 versus 36 minutes, standardized mean difference −0.94 [95% CI −1.66; −0.21], P=0.01). Major complication rate was lower numerically in the CF group but not statistically significant (1.3% versus 1.9%, odds ratio 0.71 [95% CI 0.29–1.73], P=0.45).ConclusionsThe use of CF technology results in significant reduction of the atrial fibrillation recurrence rate after atrial fibrillation ablation in comparison to the conventional catheter group. CF technology is able to significantly reduce procedure and fluoroscopic times without compromising complication rate.

show abstract

“…However, earlier irrigation systems of CF catheters utilized a flow system that delivered the irrigating fluid only to the distal surface of the electrode tip, which might result in high volume load and risk of steam pops . The surround flow (SF) entire tip irrigation system features a wide‐spread distribution of the irrigating solution (56 irrigation holes), which enables homogenous cooling, protection from thrombus formation with lower flow rate requirements, and reduce incidence of steam pops . Both technologies have been widely adopted individually: the Thermocool SmartTouch catheter (STc, Biosense Webster, Diamond Bar) and the ThermoCool SurroundFlow catheter (SFc, Biosense Webster, Diamond Bar, CA).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Chen

Gao

Liu

et al. 2019

Clinical Cardiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Which is the best catheter to perform atrial fibrillation ablation? A comparison between standard ThermoCool, SmartTouch, and Surround Flow catheters

Cited by 30 publications

References 26 publications

Persistent Atrial Fibrillation Ablation With or Without Contact Force Sensing

Persistent Atrial Fibrillation Ablation With or Without Contact Force Sensing

Impact of Contact Force Technology on Atrial Fibrillation Ablation: A Meta‐Analysis

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About