Prospective randomised comparison of irrigated-tip and large-tip catheter ablation of cavotricuspid isthmus-dependent atrial flutter

Background Radiofrequency (RF) ablation of cavotricuspid isthmus (CTI) dependent flutter can be performed using different types of ablation catheters. It has been proposed that irrigated and large-tip catheters are capable of creating larger lesions, resulting in greater efficacy. This prospective,...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inEuropean heart journal Vol. 25; no. 11; pp. 963 - 969
Main Authors Scavée, Christophe, Jaïs, Pierre, Hsu, Li-Fern, Sanders, Prashanthan, Hocini, Meleze, Weerasooriya, Rukshen, Macle, Laurent, Raybaud, Florence, Clementy, Jacques, Haïssaguerre, Michel
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Oxford Oxford University Press 01.06.2004
Oxford Publishing Limited (England)
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:Background Radiofrequency (RF) ablation of cavotricuspid isthmus (CTI) dependent flutter can be performed using different types of ablation catheters. It has been proposed that irrigated and large-tip catheters are capable of creating larger lesions, resulting in greater efficacy. This prospective, randomised clinical study compared the efficacy of irrigated and large-tip catheters of different designs. Methods Eighty patients (69 men, 66±11 years) undergoing de novo RF ablation of CTI-dependent flutter were randomised to ablation using one of the following catheters: (i) externally-irrigated \batchmode \documentclass[fleqn,10pt,legalpaper]{article} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amsmath} \pagestyle{empty} \begin{document} \((n=20)\) \end{document}, (ii) internally-cooled \batchmode \documentclass[fleqn,10pt,legalpaper]{article} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amsmath} \pagestyle{empty} \begin{document} \((n=20)\) \end{document}, (iii) single sensor, 8-mm tip \batchmode \documentclass[fleqn,10pt,legalpaper]{article} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amsmath} \pagestyle{empty} \begin{document} \((n=20)\) \end{document}, or (iv) double sensor, 8-mm tip \batchmode \documentclass[fleqn,10pt,legalpaper]{article} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amsmath} \pagestyle{empty} \begin{document} \((n=20)\) \end{document}. The study endpoint was the demonstration of bidirectional CTI conduction block within 12 min of cumulative RF delivery. Crossover to the externally-irrigated catheter was permitted if this was not achieved. The ablation and procedural parameters, safety and efficacy were compared. Results The primary endpoint was achieved in 64 patients (80%), including all 20 patients randomised to the externally-irrigated catheter. Crossover was required in 16 patients: 9 initially using the internally-cooled catheter (45%), 3 using single-sensor, 8-mm-tip (15%), and 4 using double-sensor, 8-mm-tip (20%) catheters. The higher initial failure rate with the internally-cooled-tip catheter was significant compared to the externally-irrigated \batchmode \documentclass[fleqn,10pt,legalpaper]{article} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amsmath} \pagestyle{empty} \begin{document} \((p=0.001)\) \end{document} and single-sensor, 8-mm-tip \batchmode \documentclass[fleqn,10pt,legalpaper]{article} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amsmath} \pagestyle{empty} \begin{document} \((p=0.04)\) \end{document} catheters. The externally-irrigated catheter achieved the study endpoint more frequently with fewer RF applications of shorter duration compared to the internally-cooled-tip catheter and 8-mm-tip catheters, the difference being significant compared with internally cooled ablation. No major complications were observed. Conclusion Among commonly used ablation catheters, the externally-irrigated catheter has a higher efficacy for rapid achievement of CTI block.
Bibliography:local:0.4002027.963
istex:111619BA371F84DE2BD4335A752E35254F59FB0D
ark:/67375/HXZ-9CP141Q4-S
Corresponding author. Tel.: +33-5-57656471; fax: +33-5-57656509
 E-mail address: scavee@ziplip.com
ObjectType-Article-2
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-1
ObjectType-News-3
content type line 23
ISSN:0195-668X
1522-9645
DOI:10.1016/j.ehj.2004.03.017