Review

Optimizing contact force during ablation of atrial fibrillation: available technologies and a look to the future

Lennart J de Vries

Department of Clinical Electrophysiology, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Search for more papers by this author

Tamas Szili-Torok

*Author for correspondence:

E-mail Address: t.szilitorok@erasmusmc.nl

Department of Clinical Electrophysiology, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Search for more papers by this author

Published Online:26 Feb 2016https://doi.org/10.2217/fca.15.76

View article

Abstract

In a select atrial fibrillation population, catheter ablation is considered first-line therapy. Prevention of early reconnection of the isolated pulmonary veins is an important goal for a successful treatment. Here, adequate catheter–tissue contact is crucial. One of the most promising new advances, therefore, is contact force (CF) sensing technology. The aim of this review is to provide an overview of innovations regarding catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation with a special focus on CF optimization. Both experimental and human studies show how CF sensing catheters lead to a reduction of fluoroscopy time, increased procedural safety and a better clinical outcome. Possible future developments include new parameters combining real-time ablation data, direct visualization of lesion formation and incorporation of robotics.

Keywords:

Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest

References

1 Fuster V, Rydén LE, Cannom DS et al. ACC/AHA/ESC 2006 guidelines for the management of patients with atrial fibrillation – executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the European Society of Cardiology Committee for Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to revise the 2001 Guidelines for the Management of Patients with Atrial Fibrillation). J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 48(4), 854–906 (2006).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
2 Morillo CA, Verma A, Connolly SJ et al. Radiofrequency ablation vs antiarrhythmic drugs as first-line treatment of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (RAAFT-2): a randomized trial. JAMA 311(7), 692–700 (2014).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
3 Jaïs P, Cauchemez B, Macle L et al. Catheter ablation versus antiarrhythmic drugs for atrial fibrillation: the A4 study. Circulation 118(24), 2498–2505 (2008).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
4 Wilber DJ, Pappone C, Neuzil P et al. Comparison of antiarrhythmic drug therapy and radiofrequency catheter ablation in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 303(4), 333–340 (2010).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
5 Shah DC, Lambert H, Nakagawa H, Langenkamp A, Aeby N, Leo G. Area under the real-time contact force curve (force–time integral) predicts radiofrequency lesion size in an in vitro contractile model. J. Cardiovasc. Electrophysiol. 21(9), 1038–1043 (2010). • First beating heart model and introduction of force–time integral.Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
6 Cappato R, Negroni S, Pecora D et al. Prospective assessment of late conduction recurrence across radiofrequency lesions producing electrical disconnection at the pulmonary vein ostium in patients with atrial fibrillation. Circulation 108(13), 1599–1604 (2003).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
7 Yokoyama K, Nakagawa H, Shah DC et al. Novel contact force sensor incorporated in irrigated radiofrequency ablation catheter predicts lesion size and incidence of steam pop and thrombus. Circ. Arrhythm. Electrophysiol. 1(5), 354–362 (2008). • Investigates the relationship between catheter tissue contact and lesion size.Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
8 Wittkampf FH, Nakagawa H. RF catheter ablation: lessons on lesions. Pacing Clin. Electrophysiol. 29(11), 1285–1297 (2006). • Helpful overview of radiofrequency biophysics.Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
9 Zheng X, Walcott GP, Hall JA et al. Electrode impedance: an indicator of electrode–tissue contact and lesion dimensions during linear ablation. J. Interv. Card. Electrophysiol. 4(4), 645–654 (2000).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
10 Strickberger SA, Vorperian VR, Man KC et al. Relation between impedance and endocardial contact during radiofrequency catheter ablation. Am. Heart J. 128(2), 226–229 (1994).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
11 Haines DE. Radiofrequency catheter ablation with large lesion technologies: what is the right formula? J. Cardiovasc. Electrophysiol. 20(3), 336–337 (2009).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
12 Haines D. Biophysics of ablation: application to technology. J. Cardiovasc. Electrophysiol. 15(Suppl. 10), S2–S11 (2004).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
13 Avitall B, Mughal K, Hare J, Helms R, Krum D. The effects of electrode–tissue contact on radiofrequency lesion generation. Pacing Clin. Electrophysiol. 20(12 pt 1), 2899–2910 (1997).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
14 Everett TH 4th, Lee KW, Wilson EE, Guerra JM, Varosy PD, Olgin JE. Safety profiles and lesion size of different radiofrequency ablation technologies: a comparison of large tip, open and closed irrigation catheters. J. Cardiovasc. Electrophysiol. 20(3), 325–335 (2009).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
15 Kuck KH, Reddy VY, Schmidt B et al. A novel radiofrequency ablation catheter using contact force sensing: TOCCATA study. Heart Rythm 9(1), 18–23 (2012). • Multicenter device and procedural safety study on contact force sensing.Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
16 Morady F. Radio-frequency ablation as treatment for cardiac arrhythmias. N. Engl. J. Med. 340(7), 543–544 (1999).Crossref, Google Scholar
17 Borggrefe M, Hindricks G, Haverkamp W, Breithardt G. Catheter ablation using radiofrequency energy. Clin. Cardiol. 13(2), 127–131 (1990).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
18 Simmers TA, De Bakker JM, Wittkampf FH, Hauer RN. Effects of heating with radiofrequency power on myocardial impulse conduction: is radiofrequency ablation exclusively thermally mediated? J. Cardiovasc. Electrophysiol. 7(3), 243–247 (1996).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
19 Haines DE, Watson DD, Verow AF. Electrode radius predicts lesion radius during radiofrequency energy heating. Validation of a proposed thermodynamic model. Circ. Res. 67(1), 124–129 (1990).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
20 Haines DE, Watson DD. Tissue heating during radiofrequency catheter ablation: a thermodynamic model and observations in isolated perfused and superfused canine right ventricular free wall. Pacing Clin. Electrophysiol. 12(6), 962–976 (1989).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
21 Wittkampf FH. Temperature response in radiofrequency catheter ablation. Circulation 86(5), 1648–1650 (1992).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
22 Avitall B, Khan M, Krum D et al. Physics and engineering of transcatheter cardiac tissue ablation. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 22(3), 921–932 (1993).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
23 Haines DE. The biophysics of radiofrequency catheter ablation in the heart: the importance of temperature monitoring. Pacing Clin. Electrophysiol. 16(3 Pt 2), 586–591 (1993).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
24 Nath S, Dimarco JP, Haines DE. Basic aspects of radiofrequency catheter ablation. J. Cardiovasc. Electrophysiol. 5(10), 863–876 (1994).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
25 Wittkampf FH, Simmers TA, Hauer RN, Robles De Medina EO. Myocardial temperature response during radiofrequency catheter ablation. Pacing Clin. Electrophysiol. 18(2), 307–317 (1995).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
26 Balazs T, Laczko R, Bognar E et al. Ablation time efficiency and lesion volume – in vitro comparison of 4 mm, non irrigated, gold- and platinum-iridium-tip radiofrequency ablation catheters. J. Interv. Card. Electrophysiol. 36(1), 13–18; discussion 18 (2013).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
27 Ullah W, Hunter Rj, Baker V et al. Target indices for clinical ablation in atrial fibrillation: insights from contact force, electrogram, and biophysical parameter analysis. Circ. Arrhythm. Electrophysiol. 7(1), 63–68 (2014).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
28 Haines DE. Determinants of lesion size during radiofrequency catheter ablation: the role of electrode–tissue contact pressure and duration of energy delivery. J. Cardiovasc. Electrophysiol. 2(6), 509–515 (1991).Crossref, Google Scholar
29 Nath S, Dimarco JP, Gallop RG, Mcrury ID, Haines DE. Effects of dispersive electrode position and surface area on electrical parameters and temperature during radiofrequency catheter ablation. Am. J. Cardiol. 77(9), 765–767 (1996).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
30 Eick OJ, Wittkampf FH, Bronneberg T, Schumacher B. The LETR principle: a novel method to assess electrode–tissue contact in radiofrequency ablation. J. Cardiovasc. Electrophysiol. 9(11), 1180–1185 (1998).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
31 Nakagawa H, Yamanashi WS, Pitha JV et al. Comparison of in vivo tissue temperature profile and lesion geometry for radiofrequency ablation with a saline-irrigated electrode versus temperature control in a canine thigh muscle preparation. Circulation 91(8), 2264–2273 (1995).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
32 Hutchinson MD, Garcia FC, Mandel JE et al. Efforts to enhance catheter stability improve atrial fibrillation ablation outcome. Heart Rhythm 10(3), 347–353 (2013).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
33 Piorkowski C, Eitel C, Rolf S et al. Steerable versus nonsteerable sheath technology in atrial fibrillation ablation: a prospective, randomized study. Circ. Arrhythm. Electrophysiol. 4(2), 157–165 (2011).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
34 Webster B. ThermoCool SmartTouch CF product brochure. www.biosensewebster.com/products/thermocool.aspxGoogle Scholar
35 Medical SJ. TactiCath product brochure. https://professional-intl.sjm.com/therapies/tacticath-quartz/technologyGoogle Scholar
36 Di Biase L, Natale A, Barrett C et al. Relationship between catheter forces, lesion characteristics, ‘popping’, and char formation: experience with robotic navigation system. J. Cardiovasc. Electrophysiol. 20(4), 436–440 (2009).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
37 Hussain SK, Hobby JM, Harari D, Mangrum JM. Complementary techniques and location of excessive contact force detection in the left atrium with robotic catheter navigation (abstr). Heart Rhythm 10, S407–S408 (2013).Google Scholar
38 Kautzner J, Peichl P. Contact force assessment in catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation. J. Atr. Fibrillation 6(6), 45–48 (2014).Google Scholar
39 Piorkowski C, Sih H, Sommer P et al. First in human validation of impedance-based catheter tip-to-tissue contact assessment in the left atrium. J. Cardiovasc. Electrophysiol. 20(12), 1366–1373 (2009).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
40 Holmes D, Fish JM, Byrd IA et al. Contact sensing provides a highly accurate means to titrate radiofrequency ablation lesion depth. J. Cardiovasc. Electrophysiol. 22(6), 684–690 (2011).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
41 Akca F, Janse P, Theuns DA, Szili-Torok T. A prospective study on safety of catheter ablation procedures: contact force guided ablation could reduce the risk of cardiac perforation. Int. J. Cardiol. 179, 441–448 (2015). • First study comparing safety of contact force catheter and magnetic navigation system.Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
42 Natale A, Reddy VY, Monir G et al. Paroxysmal AF catheter ablation with a contact force sensing catheter: results of the prospective, multicenter SMART-AF trial. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 64(7), 647–656 (2014).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
43 Reddy VY, Shah D, Kautzner J et al. The relationship between contact force and clinical outcome during radiofrequency catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation in the TOCCATA study. Heart Rhythm 9(11), 1789–1795 (2012). • Multicenter study investigating the relationship between contact force and clinical outcome.Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
44 Neuzil P, Reddy VY, Kautzner J et al. Electrical reconnection after pulmonary vein isolation is contingent on contact force during initial treatment results from the EFFICAS I study. Circ. Arrhythm. Electrophysiol. 6, 327–333 (2013). • First step to guidelines for contact force ablation.Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
45 Jarman JW, Panikker S, Das M et al. Relationship between contact force sensing technology and medium-term outcome of atrial fibrillation ablation: a multicenter study of 600 patients. J. Cardiovasc. Electrophysiol. 26(4), 378–384 (2015).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
46 Kimura M, Sasaki S, Owada S et al. Comparison of lesion formation between contact force-guided and non-guided circumferential pulmonary vein isolation: a prospective, randomized study. Heart Rhythm 11(6), 984–991 (2014).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
47 Gerstenfeld EP. Contact force-sensing catheters: evolution or revolution in catheter ablation technology? Circ. Arrhythm. Electrophysiol. 7(1), 5–6 (2014).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
48 Neuzil PN, Tsiachris D, Horduna IS et al. Contact force – the new paradigm for RF ablation. Europace 15(Suppl. 2), ii104–ii105 (2013).Crossref, Google Scholar
49 Kautzner J, Neuzil P, Lambert H et al. EFFICAS II: optimization of catheter contact force improves outcome of pulmonary vein isolation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. Europace 17(8), 1229–1235 (2015).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
50 Jourda F, Providencia R, Marijon E et al. Contact-force guided radiofrequency vs. second-generation balloon cryotherapy for pulmonary vein isolation in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation – a prospective evaluation. Europace 17(2), 225–231 (2015).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
51 Rosso R, Levi Y, Viskin S. Radiofrequency ablation of atrial fibrillation: comparison of success rate of circular ablation vs point-by-point ablation with contact force assessment in paroxysmal and persistent atrial fibrillation. Heart Rhythm 12(5), S446 (2015).Google Scholar
52 Szili-Torok T, Kimman Gj, Scholten M et al. Ablation lesions in Koch's triangle assessed by three-dimensional myocardial contrast echocardiography. Cardiovasc. Ultrasound 2, 27 (2004).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
53 Bortone A, Appetiti A, Bouzeman A et al. Unipolar signal modification as a guide for lesion creation during radiofrequency application in the left atrium: prospective study in humans in the setting of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation catheter ablation. Circ. Arrhythm. Electrophysiol. 6(6), 1095–1102 (2013).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
54 Schwagten B, Jordaens L, Witsenburg M et al. Initial experience with catheter ablation using remote magnetic navigation in adults with complex congenital heart disease and in small children. Pacing Clin. Electrophysiol. 32(Suppl. 1), S198–S201 (2009).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
55 Bauernfeind T, Akca F, Schwagten B et al. The magnetic navigation system allows safety and high efficacy for ablation of arrhythmias. Europace 13(7), 1015–1021 (2011).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
56 Berte B, Relan J, Sacher F et al. Impact of electrode type on mapping of scar-related VT. J. Cardiovasc. Electrophysiol. doi:10.1111/jce.12761 (2015) (Epub ahead of print).Crossref, Google Scholar
57 Jesel L, Sacher F, Komatsu Y et al. Characterization of contact force during endocardial and epicardial ventricular mapping. Circ. Arrhythm. Electrophysiol. 7(6), 1168–1173 (2014).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
58 Anter E, Tschabrunn CM, Josephson ME. High-resolution mapping of scar-related atrial arrhythmias using smaller electrodes with closer interelectrode spacing. Circ. Arrhythm. Electrophysiol. 8(3), 537–545 (2015).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar

Vol. 12, No. 2

Metrics

Downloaded 84 times

History

Published online 26 February 2016

Published in print March 2016

Information

Keywords

Financial & competing interests disclosure

The authors have no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties.

No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.

PDF download