Conclusion Meta- analysis of r and omized data demonstrated that CF guidance does not improve the safety or efficacy of AF ablation , despite initial observational data showing dramatic improvement .
Aims Despite widespread adoption of contact force ( CF ) sensing technology in atrial fibrillation ( AF ) ablation , r and omized data suggests lack of improvement in clinical outcomes .
We aim ed to assess the safety and efficacy of CF-guided vs. non CF-guided AF ablation .
Comparison of the efficacy between impedance‐guided and contact force‐guided atrial fibrillation ablation using an automated annotation system
Abstract Background This study compared the efficacy of catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation ( AF )  between impedance (IMP)‐guided and contact force (CF)‐guided annotation using the automated annotation system ( VisiTag ™ ) . Methods Fifty patients undergoing pulmonary vein isolation ( PVI ) for AF were r and omized to the IMP‐guided or CF‐guided groups . The annotation criteria for VisiTag ™ were a 10 second minimum ablation time and 2 mm maximum catheter movement range . A minimum CF of 10 g was added to the criteria in the CF‐guided group . In the IMP‐guided group , a minimum IMP drop of over 5 Ω was added to the criteria . Results The rates of successful PVI after an initial ablation line were higher in the CF‐guided group ( 80 % vs 48 % , P = .018 ) . Although average CF was similar between two groups , the average force‐time integral ( FTI ) was significantly higher in the CF‐guided group ( 298.3 ± 65 . 2 g·s vs 255.1 ± 38.3 g·s , P = .007 ) . The atrial arrhythmia‐free survival at 1 year demonstrated no difference between the two groups ( 84.0 % in the IMP‐guided group vs 80.0 % in the CF‐guided group , P = .737 ) . If the use of any antiarrhythmic drug beyond the blanking period was considered as a failure , the clinical success rate at 1 year was 52.0 % for the CF‐guided group vs 56.0 % for the IMP‐guided group ( P = .813 ) . Conclusions Atrial fibrillation ablation using an automated annotation system guided by CF improved the success rate of PVI after the initial circumferential ablation . An IMP‐guided annotation combined with catheter stability criteria showed similar clinical outcomes as compared to the CF‐guided annotation
Conclusion Meta- analysis of r and omized data demonstrated that CF guidance does not improve the safety or efficacy of AF ablation , despite initial observational data showing dramatic improvement .
Aims Despite widespread adoption of contact force ( CF ) sensing technology in atrial fibrillation ( AF ) ablation , r and omized data suggests lack of improvement in clinical outcomes .
We aim ed to assess the safety and efficacy of CF-guided vs. non CF-guided AF ablation .