Cited 4 times in
A mesh-type flexible tip catheter vs a contact force catheter for catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation: A prospective nonrandomized 1:1 matched study
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | 유희태 | - |
dc.contributor.author | 엄재선 | - |
dc.contributor.author | 박제욱 | - |
dc.contributor.author | 박희남 | - |
dc.contributor.author | 이문형 | - |
dc.contributor.author | 정보영 | - |
dc.contributor.author | 김태훈 | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2020-09-29T01:13:50Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2020-09-29T01:13:50Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2020-06 | - |
dc.identifier.issn | 1045-3873 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | https://ir.ymlib.yonsei.ac.kr/handle/22282913/179447 | - |
dc.description.abstract | Introduction: Mesh-type flexible tip (MFT) catheters allow clinicians to safely generate large radiofrequency lesions during catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF), while contact force (CF) catheters provide better catheter-tissue contact. We compared the clinical outcomes of catheter ablation of AF using MFT and CF catheters in a prospective, nonrandomized manner. Methods: We prospectively assigned 217 patients with AF (paroxysmal AF 73.5%; male 69.1%; 59.9 ± 10.7 years old) at a 1:1 ratio to ablation with MFT catheters (FlexAbility) or CF catheters (TactiCath). The primary endpoint was AF recurrence after a single procedure; the secondary endpoint was a response to antiarrhythmic drugs. Results: After a mean follow-up of 22.3 ± 4.4 months, the clinical recurrence rate did not significantly differ between the two study groups (29.7% vs 30.2%; P = .941) (log-rank P = .838). The recurrence rate for atrial tachycardias (30.3% vs 9.7%; P = .035) and cardioversion rates (8.1% vs 1.9%; P = .024) were higher in the MFT group than CF group. At the final follow-up, sinus rhythm was maintained without antiarrhythmic drugs in 57.7% of the MFT group and 40.6% of the CF group (P = .010). No significant difference was found in the major complication rates between the two groups (0.9% vs 5.7%), although the ablation time was significantly longer in the MFT group (4192.1 ± 1080.2 vs 3583.8 ± 977.2 seconds; P < .001). Conclusion: MFT and CF catheters had similar effectiveness in achieving AF rhythm control during catheter ablation, and there was no significant difference between the two catheters with regard to overall safety. | - |
dc.description.statementOfResponsibility | restriction | - |
dc.language | English | - |
dc.publisher | Blackwell | - |
dc.relation.isPartOf | JOURNAL OF CARDIOVASCULAR ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY | - |
dc.rights | CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 KR | - |
dc.title | A mesh-type flexible tip catheter vs a contact force catheter for catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation: A prospective nonrandomized 1:1 matched study | - |
dc.type | Article | - |
dc.contributor.college | College of Medicine (의과대학) | - |
dc.contributor.department | Dept. of Internal Medicine (내과학교실) | - |
dc.contributor.googleauthor | Hui-Nam Pak | - |
dc.contributor.googleauthor | Je-Wook Park | - |
dc.contributor.googleauthor | Song-Yi Yang | - |
dc.contributor.googleauthor | Hee Tae Yu | - |
dc.contributor.googleauthor | Jae-Sun Uhm | - |
dc.contributor.googleauthor | Boyoung Joung | - |
dc.contributor.googleauthor | Moon-Hyoung Lee | - |
dc.contributor.googleauthor | Tae-Hoon Kim | - |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1111/jce.14484 | - |
dc.contributor.localId | A02535 | - |
dc.contributor.localId | A02337 | - |
dc.contributor.localId | A04574 | - |
dc.contributor.localId | A01776 | - |
dc.contributor.localId | A02766 | - |
dc.contributor.localId | A05466 | - |
dc.contributor.localId | A03609 | - |
dc.relation.journalcode | J01293 | - |
dc.identifier.eissn | 1540-8167 | - |
dc.identifier.pmid | 32270578 | - |
dc.identifier.url | https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jce.14484 | - |
dc.subject.keyword | atrial fibrillation | - |
dc.subject.keyword | catheter ablation | - |
dc.subject.keyword | contact force | - |
dc.subject.keyword | electrophysiology | - |
dc.subject.keyword | recurrence | - |
dc.contributor.alternativeName | Yu, Hee Tae | - |
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthor | 유희태 | - |
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthor | 엄재선 | - |
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthor | 박제욱 | - |
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthor | 박희남 | - |
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthor | 이문형 | - |
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthor | 김태훈 | - |
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthor | 정보영 | - |
dc.citation.volume | 31 | - |
dc.citation.number | 6 | - |
dc.citation.startPage | 1279 | - |
dc.citation.endPage | 1288 | - |
dc.identifier.bibliographicCitation | JOURNAL OF CARDIOVASCULAR ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, Vol.31(6) : 1279-1288, 2020-06 | - |
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.