A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

Difference in Microembolic Signals Between Flex-Tip Versus Non-Flex-Tip Type Catheters During High-Power Short-Duration Ablation. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Introduction: A novel flex-tip ablation catheter has a distal tip with a unique design, especially for optimized irrigation flow against catheter contact. This study aimed to evaluate the microembolic signals (MESs) during high-power short-duration (HPSD) ablation between flex-tip and non-flex-tip catheters.

Method And Results: We retrospectively evaluated 70 patients (39 and 31 with flex-tip and non-flex-tip catheters, respectively) who underwent first-time HPSD radiofrequency ablation with a 50 W-power setting for atrial fibrillation at two institutions. All patients were clinically assessed for MESs using a novel carotid ultrasound-Doppler system throughout pulmonary vein isolation. The numbers of MESs were compared between the two types of catheters. In an experimental study, porcine heart pieces were ablated using two catheters to observe MESs using the same ultrasound evaluation. In the clinical study, 4913 points (2932 and 1981 points in the flex-tip and non-flex-tip groups, respectively) were analyzed. The numbers of MESs, MESs per point, and MESs per second were significantly lower in the flex-tip group than in the non-flex-tip group (123 ± 171 vs. 332 ± 256, p < 0.001; 1.8 ± 2.7 vs. 5.9 ± 4.3, p < 0.001; and 0.1 ± 0.1 vs. 0.2 ± 0.2, p < 0.001, respectively). After propensity score matching analysis in the clinical study with 19 patients in each group, the number of MESs was significantly lower in the flex-tip group than in the non-flex-tip group (152 ± 228 vs. 378 ± 300, p = 0.013), and the difference was most evident in bubble-type MESs (24 [16-96] vs. 185 [79-421], p = 0.023). In the experimental study with eight attempt ablations in each catheter, the number of MESs was significantly lower in the flex-tip group than in the non-flex-tip group (26 ± 14 vs. 58 ± 17, p = 0.002).

Conclusions: Flex-tip catheter ablation significantly reduced MES detections, particularly in the bubble-type MESs, compared with the non-flex-tip catheter ablation at 50 W. This may indicate safe HPSD ablation with the flex-tip type catheter.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jce.70074DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

flex-tip non-flex-tip
12
microembolic signals
8
high-power short-duration
8
numbers mess
8
mess
7
flex-tip
6
non-flex-tip
5
difference microembolic
4
signals flex-tip
4
flex-tip versus
4

Similar Publications