Introduction: Mesh-type flexible tip (MFT) catheters allow clinicians to safely generate large radiofrequency lesions during catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF), while contact force (CF) catheters provide better catheter-tissue contact. We compared the clinical outcomes of catheter ablation of AF using MFT and CF catheters in a prospective, nonrandomized manner. Methods: We prospectively assigned 217 patients with AF (paroxysmal AF 73.5%; male 69.1%; 59.9 ± 10.7 years old) at a 1:1 ratio to ablation with MFT catheters (FlexAbility) or CF catheters (TactiCath). The primary endpoint was AF recurrence after a single procedure; the secondary endpoint was a response to antiarrhythmic drugs. Results: After a mean follow-up of 22.3 ± 4.4 months, the clinical recurrence rate did not significantly differ between the two study groups (29.7% vs 30.2%; P =.941) (log-rank P =.838). The recurrence rate for atrial tachycardias (30.3% vs 9.7%; P =.035) and cardioversion rates (8.1% vs 1.9%; P =.024) were higher in the MFT group than CF group. At the final follow-up, sinus rhythm was maintained without antiarrhythmic drugs in 57.7% of the MFT group and 40.6% of the CF group (P =.010). No significant difference was found in the major complication rates between the two groups (0.9% vs 5.7%), although the ablation time was significantly longer in the MFT group (4192.1 ± 1080.2 vs 3583.8 ± 977.2 seconds; P <.001). Conclusion: MFT and CF catheters had similar effectiveness in achieving AF rhythm control during catheter ablation, and there was no significant difference between the two catheters with regard to overall safety.
Bibliographical noteFunding Information:
We thank John Martin for his linguistic assistance and Jung Kee Lee for his technical assistance. This study was supported by grants (HI18C0070) and (HI19C0114) from the Ministry of Health and Welfare and a grant (NRF‐2017R1A2B4003983) from the Basic Science Research Program run by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF), which is funded by the Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning (MSIP).
© 2020 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes
- Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
- Physiology (medical)