Lesion Size and Safety Comparison between the Novel Flex Tip on the FlexAbility Ablation Catheter and the Solid Tips on the ThermoCool and ThermoCool SF Ablation Catheters Journal Article

Local Library Link: Find It @ Loyola

Authors: Winterfield, J. R.; Jensen, J.; Gilbert, T.; Marchlinski, F.; Natale, A.; Packer, D.; Reddy, V.; Mahapatra, S.; Wilber, D. J.
Article Title: Lesion Size and Safety Comparison between the Novel Flex Tip on the FlexAbility Ablation Catheter and the Solid Tips on the ThermoCool and ThermoCool SF Ablation Catheters
Abstract: INTRODUCTION: Next generation catheters have been developed to reduce irrigation volume and preserve power delivery. A novel design employs a flexible tip (FlexAbility catheter) that directs flow to the contact surface. Due to recent safety issues with new catheters, we undertook a study in a canine heart with three irrigated catheters to compare efficacy and safety. METHODS: Endocardial ablation was performed by two independent operators in 12 anesthetized canines with the FlexAbility (St. Jude Medical), ThermoCool1 (Biosense Webster), and ThermoCool SF (Biosense Webster) catheters. Endocardial RF lesions were delivered with each catheter in all 4 chambers of each animal for 52 +/- 16 seconds. Each chamber was randomized to receive ablation from one catheter with recording of safety events. Cardiac pathology was performed with TTC stain. RESULTS: Average lesion dimensions were not significantly different between the three catheters. FlexAbility demonstrated a lower risk of steam pops relative to ThermoCool SF (P-value = 0.013) despite equal mean power and RF time. High temperature generator shutdowns were observed with FlexAbility but not with either ThermoCool catheter. High temperature shutdowns were associated with larger average impedance drops (28.5 vs 19 ohms) without compromising lesion size. CONCLUSIONS: The FlexAbility tip is safe and effective with no significant difference in lesions sizes compared to both standard ThermoCool and ThermoCool SF. FlexAbility has a significantly lower risk of steam pops compared to ThermoCool SF in a beating heart as defined predominantly by an abrupt rise of impedance. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Journal Title: Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology
ISSN: 1540-8167; 1045-3873
Publisher: Unknown  
Date Published: 2015
Language: ENG
DOI/URL:

10.1111/jce.12835
Notes: LR: 20150912; CI: This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.; JID: 9010756; OTO: NOTNLM; 2015/01/31 [received]; 2015/08/14 [revised]; 2015/08/16 [accepted]; aheadofprint