Fehmi Keçe

Chapter 2 36 Table 1b. Continued. 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 (%) Ullah, 2016 (27) (multicenter RCT) N= 59 RF N= 59 RFA 100 Power limitation (30W) Temperature limitation (48°C) 49 vs. 52 39 [IQR 32-46] vs. 41 [IQR 34-50] - Pericardial effusion/Cardiac tamponade 1.7 vs. 3.4 - Vascular access 6.8 vs. 3.9 - Other: pericarditis 3.4 RFA Wutzler, 2014 (168) (prospective, non- randomized) N=112 RF N=31 RFA 76 vs. 61 Power limitation (35W) Temperature limitation (43°C) 63 vs. 84 (p=0.031) 158 vs. 128 - Pericardial effusion/Cardiac tamponade 0.9 RF - Vascular access 2.7 vs. 3.2 Only observational/retrospective studies and randomized clinical trials with n>100 are included) in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, showing use of different RF ablation devices, outcomes, the use of preventive techniques and complications rates.AAD= anti-arrhythmic drugs, DC=dormant conduction, IQR=interquartile range, PAF=paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, PNP=phrenic nerve palsy, RF=radiofrequency ablation, , RFA=radiofrequency ablation advanced with CF technology and TIA=Transient ischemic attack. P-values indicated significant differences between catheters with and without contact-force (RF versus RFA).