Catheter-related complications and mortality of atrial fibrillation ablation following introduction of contact force-sensing technology

Tissue Ablation: Applications and Perspectives

Tissue ablation techniques have emerged as a critical component of modern medical practice and biomedical research, offering versatile solutions for treating various diseases and disorders. Percutaneous ablation is minimally invasive and offers numerous advantages over traditional surgery, such as shorter recovery times, reduced hospital stays, and decreased healthcare costs. Intra-procedural imaging during ablation also allows precise visualization of the treated tissue while minimizing injury to the surrounding normal tissues, reducing the risk of complications. Here, the mechanisms of tissue ablation and innovative energy delivery systems are explored, highlighting recent advancements that have reshaped the landscape of clinical practice. Current clinical challenges related to tissue ablation are also discussed, underlining unmet clinical needs for more advanced material-based approaches to improve the delivery of energy and pharmacology-based therapeutics.

Catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation: anticipating and avoiding complications

INTRODUCTION

Atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation is being performed more frequently and more widely at more centers. This stems from several factors including 1) demographic forces leading to an increased prevalence of the arrhythmia; 2) greater availability of ambulatory monitoring making diagnosis more frequent; 3) relative inefficacy of medications; and 4) improved safety and efficacy of the procedure. Ablation has become much more streamlined and reproducible than a decade ago, but life-threatening complications may still arise.

AREAS COVERED

This review will focus on awareness, avoidance, and early recognition and management of complications of AF ablation. This literature review is challenged by differing approaches to ablation of AF both within a center and between centers, the rapid improvement of technology making the outcomes associated with a therapeutic strategy begun a few years prior relatively obsolete, as well as the heterogeneity of the population being studied.

EXPERT OPINION

Newer technologies are on the horizon which will allow us to ablate AF with increasing efficacy, efficiency, and hopefully safety. Such new technology and changing usage mandate vigilance to avoid complications.

Safety and Effectiveness of a Catheter With Contact Force and 6-Hole Irrigation for Ablation of Persistent Atrial Fibrillation in Routine Clinical Practice

IMPORTANCE

The ThermoCool SmartTouch catheter (ablation catheter with contact force and 6-hole irrigation [CF-I6]) is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation and used in routine clinical practice for persistent AF ablation, although clinical outcomes for this indication are unknown. There is a need to understand whether data from routine clinical practice can be used to conduct regulatory-grade evaluations and support label expansions.

OBJECTIVE

To use health system data to compare the safety and effectiveness of the CF-I6 catheter for persistent AF ablation with the ThermoCool SmartTouch SurroundFlow catheter (ablation catheter with contact force and 56-hole irrigation [CF-I56]), which is approved by the FDA for this indication.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This retrospective, comparative-effectiveness cohort study included patients undergoing catheter ablation for persistent AF at Mercy Health or Mayo Clinic from January 1, 2014, to April 30, 2021, with up to a 1-year follow-up using electronic health record data.

EXPOSURES

Use of the CF-I6 or CF-I56 catheter.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary safety outcome was a composite of death, thromboembolic events, and procedural complications within 7 to 90 days. The exploratory effectiveness outcome was a composite of AF-related hospitalization events after a 90-day blanking period. Propensity score weighting was used to balance baseline covariates. Risk differences were estimated between catheter groups and averaged across the 2 health care systems, testing for noninferiority of the CF-I6 vs the CF-I56 catheter with respect to the safety outcome using 2-sided 90% CIs.

RESULTS

Overall, 1450 patients (1034 [71.3%] male; 1397 [96.3%] White) underwent catheter ablation for persistent AF, including 949 at Mercy Health (186 CF-I6 and 763 CF-I56; mean [SD] age, 64.9 [9.2] years) and 501 at Mayo Clinic (337 CF-I6 and 164 CF-I56; mean [SD] age, 63.7 [9.5] years). A total of 798 (55.0%) had been treated with class I or III antiarrhythmic drugs before ablation. The safety outcome (CF-I6 - CF-I56) was similar at both Mercy Health (1.3%; 90% CI, -2.1% to 4.6%) and Mayo Clinic (-3.8%; 90% CI, -11.4% to 3.7%); the mean difference was noninferior, with a mean of 0.5% (90% CI, -2.6% to 3.5%; P < .001). The effectiveness was similar at 12 months between the 2 catheter groups (mean risk difference, -1.8%; 90% CI, -7.3% to 3.7%).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cohort study, the CF-I6 catheter met the prespecified noninferiority safety criterion for persistent AF ablation compared with the CF-I56 catheter, and effectiveness was similar. This study demonstrates the ability of electronic health care system data to enable safety and effectiveness evaluations of medical devices.