Contact Force in Ventricular Tachycardia Ablation Background Poor catheter-to-myocardial contact can lead to ineffective ablation lesions and suboptimal outcome. Contact force (CF) sensing catheters in ventricular tachyarrhythmia (VT) ablations have not been studied for their long-term efficacy. Purpose The aim of this study was to compare CF ablation to manual ablation (MAN) and remote magnetic navigation (RMN) ablation for safety and efficacy in acute and long-term outcome. Methods A total of 239 consecutive patients who underwent VT ablation with the use of MAN, CF, or RMN catheters were included in this single-center cohort study from January 2007 until March 2014. The primary endpoints were procedural success, acute major complications, and VT recurrences at follow-up. The median follow-up period was 25 months. Results Acute success was achieved in 182 out of 239 procedures (76%). Acute success in manual ablation, CF ablation and RMN ablation was 71%, 71%, and 86%, respectively (P = 0.03). Major complications occurred in 3.3% and there were less major complications (P = 0.04) in the RMN group. After an initial successful procedure, 66 of 182 patients (36%) had a recurrence during follow-up. This was not significantly different between groups. Using an intention-to-treat analysis, 124 patients (52%) had a recurrence. The recurrence rate was lowest in the RMN group. Conclusion The use of CF sensing catheters did not improve procedural outcome or safety profile in comparison to non-CF sensing ablation in this observational study of ventricular arrhythmia ablations.

catheter ablation, contact force, remote magnetic navigation, ventricular tachycardia
dx.doi.org/10.1111/jce.12762, hdl.handle.net/1765/88010
Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology
Department of Cardiology

Hendriks, A.A, Akca, F, Dabiri Abkenari, L, Khan, M, Bhagwandien, R.E, Yap, S.C, … Szili-Török, T. (2015). Safety and clinical outcome of catheter ablation of ventricular arrhythmias using contact force sensing: Consecutive case series. Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology, 26(11), 1224–1229. doi:10.1111/jce.12762