Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31321659›Full record

ArticleJournal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing2020

Porous tip contact force-sensing catheters for pulmonary vein isolation: performance in a clinical routine setting.

Tobias Plenge, Jan-Hendrik van den Bruck, Jakob Lüker, Arian Sultan, Daniel Steven

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Tobias PlengeDepartment of Electrophysiology, Heart Center, University Hospital Cologne, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany. tobias.plenge@uk-koeln.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6823-3060
Jan-Hendrik van den BruckDepartment of Electrophysiology, Heart Center, University Hospital Cologne, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany.
Jakob LükerDepartment of Electrophysiology, Heart Center, University Hospital Cologne, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany.
Arian SultanDepartment of Electrophysiology, Heart Center, University Hospital Cologne, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany.
Daniel StevenDepartment of Electrophysiology, Heart Center, University Hospital Cologne, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany.
University Hospital Cologne · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeIn catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF), contact force (CF)-sensing catheters with an irrigated tip are used to deliver radiofrequency (RF) energy to the tissue. The ThermoCool® Smarttouch™ Surroundflow catheter (STSF) integrates CF-sensing technology and a new porous tip for advanced external cooling. The aim was to evaluate the performance and safety of STSF in a clinical setting of pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) in comparison with standard contact force-sensing catheter (ST).

methodsWe assigned consecutive patients (n = 80, prospectively, open-label, non-randomized) with symptomatic AF to either PVI with STSF (n = 60) or ST (n = 20).

resultsTotal ablation time to achieve PVI was significantly shorter in STSF compared to that in ST (STSF, 1556 ± 435 s vs. ST, 1922 ± 961 s; p = 0.045). Ablation time to achieve loss of pace capture of left pulmonary veins was shorter using STSF (left veins, 155 ± 140 s vs. 291 ± 188 s; p = 0.01; right veins, 208 ± 196 s vs. 369 ± 306 s; p = 0.09). Furthermore, administered irrigation fluid was significantly reduced in STSF (241.4 ± 79.6 ml vs. 540.3 ± 229.5 ml; p < 0.01). CF was lower during ablation of left pulmonary veins. One steam pop occurred in STSF, which did not lead to pericardial effusion (vs. no steam pop in ST). The Kaplan-Meier estimate 12-month AF recurrence was 34.3% and 37.7% (p = 0.8).

conclusionsIntegrating CF technology and the porous tip technology enables effective energy transfer to the tissue resulting in shorter ablation time and less irrigation fluid administration. In our cohort, PVI using the STSF was not associated with an increased complication rate or AF recurrence rate after 12-month follow-up when compared with the ST.

Indexed as

Transducers, PressureAdultAgedAtrial FibrillationCatheter AblationEquipment DesignFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPorosityProspective StudiesRecurrenceAtrial fibrillationCatheter ablationContact forcePorous tipPulmonary vein isolation

Identifiers

PMID31321659
OpenAlexW2963702972

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.