IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0212903.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Multicentre randomised trial comparing contact force with electrical coupling index in atrial flutter ablation (VERISMART trial)

Author

Listed:
  • Gordon A Begg
  • James O’Neill
  • Afzal Sohaib
  • Ailsa McLean
  • Chris B Pepper
  • Lee N Graham
  • Andrew J Hogarth
  • Stephen P Page
  • Richard G Gillott
  • Nicola Hill
  • Jacqueline Walshaw
  • Richard J Schilling
  • Prapa Kanagaratnam
  • Muzahir H Tayebjee

Abstract

Introduction: Electrical coupling index (ECI) and contact force (CF) have been developed to aid lesion formation during catheter ablation. ECI measures tissue impedance and capacitance whilst CF measures direct contact. The aim was to determine whether the presence of catheter / tissue interaction information, such as ECI and CF, reduce time to achieve bidirectional cavotricuspid isthmus block during atrial flutter (AFL) ablation. Methods: Patients with paroxysmal or persistent AFL were randomised to CF visible (range 5-40g), CF not visible, ECI visible (change of 12%) or ECI not visible. Follow-up occurred at 3 and 6 months and included a 7 day ECG recording. The primary endpoint was time to bidirectional cavotricuspid isthmus block. Results: 114 patients were randomised, 16 were excluded. Time to bidirectional block was significantly shorter when ECI was visible (median 30.0 mins (IQR 31) to median 10.5mins (IQR 12) p 0.023) versus ECI not visible. There was a trend towards a shorter time to bidirectional block when CF was visible. Higher force was applied when CF was visible (median 9.03g (IQR 7.4) vs. 11.3g (5.5) p 0.017). There was no difference in the acute recurrence of conduction between groups. The complication rate was 2%, AFL recurrence was 1.1% and at 6 month follow-up, 12% had atrial fibrillation. Conclusion: The use of tissue contact information during AFL ablation was associated with reduced time taken to achieve bidirectional block when ECI was visible. Contact force data improved contact when visible with a trend towards a reduction in the procedural endpoint.

Suggested Citation

  • Gordon A Begg & James O’Neill & Afzal Sohaib & Ailsa McLean & Chris B Pepper & Lee N Graham & Andrew J Hogarth & Stephen P Page & Richard G Gillott & Nicola Hill & Jacqueline Walshaw & Richard J Schil, 2019. "Multicentre randomised trial comparing contact force with electrical coupling index in atrial flutter ablation (VERISMART trial)," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(4), pages 1-13, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0212903
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0212903
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0212903
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0212903&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0212903?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0212903. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.