Prospective randomized comparison of cooled radiofrequency versus standard radiofrequency energy for ablation of typical atrial flutter

Walter L. Atiga, Seth J. Worley, John Hummel, Ronald D. Berger, Douglas C. Gohn, Nicholas J. Mandalakas, Steven Kalbfleisch, Henry Halperin, Kevin Donahue, Gordon F. Tomaselli, Hugh Calkins, Emile Daoud

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

40 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In patients with atrial flutter, conventional RF ablation may not result in complete isthmus block. This prospective, randomized study tested the hypothesis that the cooled RF ablation is safe and facilitates the achievement of isthmus block with fewer RF applications than with standard ablation for typical atrial flutter. Isthmus ablation was performed in 59 patients (40 men, 64 ± 14 years) with type I atrial flutter using standard RF (n = 31) or cooled RF (n = 28) catheters with crossover after 12 unsuccessful RF applications. The endpoint was bidirectional isthmus block or a total of 24 unsuccessful RF applications. After the first 12 RF applications, 17 (55%) of 31 standard RF and 22 (79%) of 28 cooled RF patients had bidirectional isthmus block (P < 0.05). After the remaining patients crossed over to the alternate RF ablation system and underwent up to 12 more RF applications, bidirectional isthmus block had been demonstrated in 27 (87%) of 31 standard RF and 25 (89%) of 28 cooled RF patients (P = NS). Isthmus block was not achieved within 24 RF applications in four standard and three cooled RF patients. Mean measured tip temperatures for cooled RF were lower than for standard RF (38.5°C ± 6.98°C vs 57.2°C ± 7.42°C, P < 0.0001). Peak temperatures were also lower for cooled RF compared to standard RF (45.7°C ± 22.7°C vs 63.4°C ± 9.87°C, P < 0.0001). Importantly, mean power delivered was significantly higher for cooled than for standard RF (42.3 ± 9.48 vs 34.0 ± 14.0 W, P < 0.0001). There were no serious complications for either ablation system. During a 12.8 ± 3.76-month follow-up, there were two atrial flutter recurrences in the cooled RF group and four in the standard RF group (P = NS). In patients with type I atrial flutter, ablation with the cooled RF catheter is as safe as, and facilitates creation of bidirectional isthmus block more rapidly than, standard RF ablation.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1172-1178
Number of pages7
JournalPACE - Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology
Volume25
Issue number8
StatePublished - Aug 1 2002
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Atrial Flutter
Catheters
Temperature
Prospective Studies
Recurrence

Keywords

  • Atrial flutter
  • Cooled
  • Radiofrequency ablation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Atiga, W. L., Worley, S. J., Hummel, J., Berger, R. D., Gohn, D. C., Mandalakas, N. J., ... Daoud, E. (2002). Prospective randomized comparison of cooled radiofrequency versus standard radiofrequency energy for ablation of typical atrial flutter. PACE - Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology, 25(8), 1172-1178.

Prospective randomized comparison of cooled radiofrequency versus standard radiofrequency energy for ablation of typical atrial flutter. / Atiga, Walter L.; Worley, Seth J.; Hummel, John; Berger, Ronald D.; Gohn, Douglas C.; Mandalakas, Nicholas J.; Kalbfleisch, Steven; Halperin, Henry; Donahue, Kevin; Tomaselli, Gordon F.; Calkins, Hugh; Daoud, Emile.

In: PACE - Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology, Vol. 25, No. 8, 01.08.2002, p. 1172-1178.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Atiga, WL, Worley, SJ, Hummel, J, Berger, RD, Gohn, DC, Mandalakas, NJ, Kalbfleisch, S, Halperin, H, Donahue, K, Tomaselli, GF, Calkins, H & Daoud, E 2002, 'Prospective randomized comparison of cooled radiofrequency versus standard radiofrequency energy for ablation of typical atrial flutter', PACE - Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology, vol. 25, no. 8, pp. 1172-1178.
Atiga, Walter L. ; Worley, Seth J. ; Hummel, John ; Berger, Ronald D. ; Gohn, Douglas C. ; Mandalakas, Nicholas J. ; Kalbfleisch, Steven ; Halperin, Henry ; Donahue, Kevin ; Tomaselli, Gordon F. ; Calkins, Hugh ; Daoud, Emile. / Prospective randomized comparison of cooled radiofrequency versus standard radiofrequency energy for ablation of typical atrial flutter. In: PACE - Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology. 2002 ; Vol. 25, No. 8. pp. 1172-1178.
@article{de31e18b0af546769cf09bbcef65c46c,
title = "Prospective randomized comparison of cooled radiofrequency versus standard radiofrequency energy for ablation of typical atrial flutter",
abstract = "In patients with atrial flutter, conventional RF ablation may not result in complete isthmus block. This prospective, randomized study tested the hypothesis that the cooled RF ablation is safe and facilitates the achievement of isthmus block with fewer RF applications than with standard ablation for typical atrial flutter. Isthmus ablation was performed in 59 patients (40 men, 64 ± 14 years) with type I atrial flutter using standard RF (n = 31) or cooled RF (n = 28) catheters with crossover after 12 unsuccessful RF applications. The endpoint was bidirectional isthmus block or a total of 24 unsuccessful RF applications. After the first 12 RF applications, 17 (55{\%}) of 31 standard RF and 22 (79{\%}) of 28 cooled RF patients had bidirectional isthmus block (P < 0.05). After the remaining patients crossed over to the alternate RF ablation system and underwent up to 12 more RF applications, bidirectional isthmus block had been demonstrated in 27 (87{\%}) of 31 standard RF and 25 (89{\%}) of 28 cooled RF patients (P = NS). Isthmus block was not achieved within 24 RF applications in four standard and three cooled RF patients. Mean measured tip temperatures for cooled RF were lower than for standard RF (38.5°C ± 6.98°C vs 57.2°C ± 7.42°C, P < 0.0001). Peak temperatures were also lower for cooled RF compared to standard RF (45.7°C ± 22.7°C vs 63.4°C ± 9.87°C, P < 0.0001). Importantly, mean power delivered was significantly higher for cooled than for standard RF (42.3 ± 9.48 vs 34.0 ± 14.0 W, P < 0.0001). There were no serious complications for either ablation system. During a 12.8 ± 3.76-month follow-up, there were two atrial flutter recurrences in the cooled RF group and four in the standard RF group (P = NS). In patients with type I atrial flutter, ablation with the cooled RF catheter is as safe as, and facilitates creation of bidirectional isthmus block more rapidly than, standard RF ablation.",
keywords = "Atrial flutter, Cooled, Radiofrequency ablation",
author = "Atiga, {Walter L.} and Worley, {Seth J.} and John Hummel and Berger, {Ronald D.} and Gohn, {Douglas C.} and Mandalakas, {Nicholas J.} and Steven Kalbfleisch and Henry Halperin and Kevin Donahue and Tomaselli, {Gordon F.} and Hugh Calkins and Emile Daoud",
year = "2002",
month = "8",
day = "1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "25",
pages = "1172--1178",
journal = "PACE - Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology",
issn = "0147-8389",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "8",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Prospective randomized comparison of cooled radiofrequency versus standard radiofrequency energy for ablation of typical atrial flutter

AU - Atiga, Walter L.

AU - Worley, Seth J.

AU - Hummel, John

AU - Berger, Ronald D.

AU - Gohn, Douglas C.

AU - Mandalakas, Nicholas J.

AU - Kalbfleisch, Steven

AU - Halperin, Henry

AU - Donahue, Kevin

AU - Tomaselli, Gordon F.

AU - Calkins, Hugh

AU - Daoud, Emile

PY - 2002/8/1

Y1 - 2002/8/1

N2 - In patients with atrial flutter, conventional RF ablation may not result in complete isthmus block. This prospective, randomized study tested the hypothesis that the cooled RF ablation is safe and facilitates the achievement of isthmus block with fewer RF applications than with standard ablation for typical atrial flutter. Isthmus ablation was performed in 59 patients (40 men, 64 ± 14 years) with type I atrial flutter using standard RF (n = 31) or cooled RF (n = 28) catheters with crossover after 12 unsuccessful RF applications. The endpoint was bidirectional isthmus block or a total of 24 unsuccessful RF applications. After the first 12 RF applications, 17 (55%) of 31 standard RF and 22 (79%) of 28 cooled RF patients had bidirectional isthmus block (P < 0.05). After the remaining patients crossed over to the alternate RF ablation system and underwent up to 12 more RF applications, bidirectional isthmus block had been demonstrated in 27 (87%) of 31 standard RF and 25 (89%) of 28 cooled RF patients (P = NS). Isthmus block was not achieved within 24 RF applications in four standard and three cooled RF patients. Mean measured tip temperatures for cooled RF were lower than for standard RF (38.5°C ± 6.98°C vs 57.2°C ± 7.42°C, P < 0.0001). Peak temperatures were also lower for cooled RF compared to standard RF (45.7°C ± 22.7°C vs 63.4°C ± 9.87°C, P < 0.0001). Importantly, mean power delivered was significantly higher for cooled than for standard RF (42.3 ± 9.48 vs 34.0 ± 14.0 W, P < 0.0001). There were no serious complications for either ablation system. During a 12.8 ± 3.76-month follow-up, there were two atrial flutter recurrences in the cooled RF group and four in the standard RF group (P = NS). In patients with type I atrial flutter, ablation with the cooled RF catheter is as safe as, and facilitates creation of bidirectional isthmus block more rapidly than, standard RF ablation.

AB - In patients with atrial flutter, conventional RF ablation may not result in complete isthmus block. This prospective, randomized study tested the hypothesis that the cooled RF ablation is safe and facilitates the achievement of isthmus block with fewer RF applications than with standard ablation for typical atrial flutter. Isthmus ablation was performed in 59 patients (40 men, 64 ± 14 years) with type I atrial flutter using standard RF (n = 31) or cooled RF (n = 28) catheters with crossover after 12 unsuccessful RF applications. The endpoint was bidirectional isthmus block or a total of 24 unsuccessful RF applications. After the first 12 RF applications, 17 (55%) of 31 standard RF and 22 (79%) of 28 cooled RF patients had bidirectional isthmus block (P < 0.05). After the remaining patients crossed over to the alternate RF ablation system and underwent up to 12 more RF applications, bidirectional isthmus block had been demonstrated in 27 (87%) of 31 standard RF and 25 (89%) of 28 cooled RF patients (P = NS). Isthmus block was not achieved within 24 RF applications in four standard and three cooled RF patients. Mean measured tip temperatures for cooled RF were lower than for standard RF (38.5°C ± 6.98°C vs 57.2°C ± 7.42°C, P < 0.0001). Peak temperatures were also lower for cooled RF compared to standard RF (45.7°C ± 22.7°C vs 63.4°C ± 9.87°C, P < 0.0001). Importantly, mean power delivered was significantly higher for cooled than for standard RF (42.3 ± 9.48 vs 34.0 ± 14.0 W, P < 0.0001). There were no serious complications for either ablation system. During a 12.8 ± 3.76-month follow-up, there were two atrial flutter recurrences in the cooled RF group and four in the standard RF group (P = NS). In patients with type I atrial flutter, ablation with the cooled RF catheter is as safe as, and facilitates creation of bidirectional isthmus block more rapidly than, standard RF ablation.

KW - Atrial flutter

KW - Cooled

KW - Radiofrequency ablation

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0036692907&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0036692907&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 12358166

AN - SCOPUS:0036692907

VL - 25

SP - 1172

EP - 1178

JO - PACE - Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology

JF - PACE - Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology

SN - 0147-8389

IS - 8

ER -