Fehmi Keçe

Advances in Atrial Fibrillation Ablation Devices 35 2 Table 1b. Overview of literature on radiofrequency ablation with and without Contact-Force. Author, year (study type) Number of patients and type of ablation device PAF (%) Preventive techniques AAD free survival (1 year) (%) Procedural and ablation time (min) Complications (%) Itoh, 2016 (163) (prospective, non- randomized) N=50 RF N=50 RFA 100 Power reduction (30W anterior, 25W posterior) 78 vs. 94 245 vs. 165 (p<0.001) N.A. - No major complications in both groups Jarman, 2015 (164) (multicenter, retrospective) N=400 RF N=200 RFA 46 Power reduction (30- 35W anterior, posterior 25W) 46 vs 59 (p=0.05) - Pericardial effusion/Cardiac tamponade 1.2 RFA - Stroke 0.2 RF TIA 0.2 RFA - AE fistula 0.2 RF - Pulmonary vein stenosis 0.2 RF - Vascular access 1.8 (RF/RFA) Lee, 2016 (165) (retrospective, observational, cohort) N= 418 RF N=238 RFA 47 vs. 41 Power limitation (30W) N.A. 200 vs. 240 (p<0.001) 43 vs. 35 - Pericardial effusion/Cardiac tamponade 0.8 vs. 1.0 Nair, 2017 (166) (observational cohort) N=99 RF n=68 RFA 100 Power reduction (<40w anterior and <25w posterior) 51 vs. 66 (p=0.06) (3-year follow up) 347 vs. 257 (p<0.001) 57 vs. 43 (p<0.001) - Cardiac tamponade 3 vs. 0 - Vascular access 1 RF - Other: Oesophageal tear during temperature probe insertion 1 RFA, Traumatic Foley catheter insertion 1 RF Reddy, 2015(41) (multicenter RCT) N=143 RF N=152 RFA 100 N.A. 68 vs. 69 N.A. 27vs.23. (p=0.044) - Cardiac tamponade 2.7vs.2.1 and Pericarditis 1.3 RFA - Pulmonary vein stenosis 0.7 RF - Vascular access 2 vs. 2.1 - Other: Pulmonary oedema 1.3 vs. 1.4 Sigmund, 2015 (167) (prospective, case matched) N=99 RF N=99 RFA 65 vs. 63 Power reduction (30-35 anterior, 25 posterior) Temperature limitation (43°C) 73 vs. 82 216 vs. 178 (p<0.001) 48 vs. 38 (p=0.001) - Cardiac tamponade 3.0 vs. 2.0 - Vascular access 2 vs. 1