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 robotic and manual persistent AF ablation using catheter contact force sensing: an international multicenter registry study.
BACKGROUND Catheter-based contact force sensing ( CFS ) technology gives detailed information regarding contact between the catheter tip and myocardium . This may result in more effective ablation procedures . The primary objective of this study was comparison of remote robotic navigation ( RRN ) and Manual CFS ablation . The secondary objective was to compare CFS with non-CFS ablation for both navigation modes . METHODS Prospect i ve registries of consecutive cases undergoing their first ablation for persistent atrial fibrillation ( AF ) from six hospitals in the United Kingdom and South Africa were analyzed : 50 Manual/CFS and 50 RRN/CFS cases were included . Historical control non-CFS ablation patients were matched by propensity score , giving a total 200 patient cohort . RESULTS RRN/CFS was associated with improved single procedure 1-year success rates ( 64 % vs 36 % , P = 0.01 ) and shorter fluoroscopy times ( 41 % reduction , P < 0.0005 ) than Manual/CFS ablation , without any difference in procedure times ( P = 0.8 ) . The mean contact force was higher in RRN/CFS than Manual/CFS cases ( 16 [ 15 - 18 g ] vs 13 [ 12 - 15 g ] , respectively , P = 0.003 ) . Compared with non-CFS historical controls , CFS cases had higher 1-year success rates for RRN ( 64 % vs 36 % , P = 0.01 ) , but not Manual ablation ( 36 % vs 38 % , P = 1 ) . Procedure times were reduced for CFS cases ( 20 % , P < 0.005 both navigation modes ) , as were fluoroscopy times ( Manual : 43 % , RRN 83 % , P < 0.005 for both ) . There were no differences in rates of major or minor complications for either comparison ( P > 0.5 ) . CONCLUSIONS A combination of RRN and CFS is associated with improved success rates at 1 year and fluoroscopy times for persistent AF ablation , compared with Manual ablation and non-CFS RRN ablation
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 .