loading page

Contact force ablation of accessory pathways in pediatric patients
  • +1
  • Caitlin Pook,
  • Evelyn Kuhn,
  • anoop singh,
  • Joshua Kovach
Caitlin Pook
Medical College of Wisconsin
Author Profile
Evelyn Kuhn
Childrens Wisconsin
Author Profile
anoop singh
Medical College of Wisconsin
Author Profile
Joshua Kovach
Medical College of Wisconsin
Author Profile


Introduction: Contact force (CF) catheters provide feedback confirming adequate tissue contact for optimal lesion size and minimal complications. CF ablation catheters have resulted in decreased procedure times and improved outcomes for ablation of atrial fibrillation in adults. There is limited data evaluating CF use for accessory pathway (AP) ablation or in pediatric patients. The aim of our study was to compare a cohort who underwent AP ablation with a CF catheter to historical controls, evaluating for differences in procedure times, number of lesions, and outcomes. Methods: A retrospective chart review of CF ablation cases at Children’s Wisconsin performed between June 2015 to April 2018 was compared to a historical control cohort of traditional radiofrequency (RF) ablations between June 2012 to June 2015. 43 patients with APs underwent 49 CF ablation procedures (18 males, 13.6 ± 3 years old) and a control cohort consisted of 77 procedures in 69 patients (38 males, 12.4 ± 4 years). Results: The groups did not differ significantly on procedure time (CF 2.01 ± 0.48 hr, control 1.53 ± 0.48 hr, p = 0.37), or total lesions administered (CF and control 7 ± 6 lesions, p = 0.89). CF cases showed a trend toward improvement in acute success (98% CF, 90% controls, p = 0.15) though with increased recurrence compared to controls (13% CF, 5% controls, p = 0.16), neither being statistically significant. Conclusion: Our study suggests that ablation outcomes using CF are comparable to traditional RF ablation in pediatric patients with APs.

Peer review status:Published

31 Jul 2020Submitted to Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology
01 Aug 2020Submission Checks Completed
01 Aug 2020Assigned to Editor
04 Aug 2020Reviewer(s) Assigned
16 Aug 2020Review(s) Completed, Editorial Evaluation Pending
17 Aug 2020Editorial Decision: Revise Minor
19 Sep 20201st Revision Received
21 Sep 2020Assigned to Editor
21 Sep 2020Submission Checks Completed
21 Sep 2020Reviewer(s) Assigned
04 Oct 2020Review(s) Completed, Editorial Evaluation Pending
04 Oct 2020Editorial Decision: Revise Minor
23 Oct 20202nd Revision Received
02 Nov 2020Submission Checks Completed
02 Nov 2020Assigned to Editor
02 Nov 2020Reviewer(s) Assigned
05 Nov 2020Review(s) Completed, Editorial Evaluation Pending
05 Nov 2020Editorial Decision: Accept
Feb 2021Published in Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology volume 32 issue 2 on pages 370-375. 10.1111/jce.14817