loading page

Comparison of higher-power and conventional power ablation of atrial fibrillation using contact-force sensing catheters: A systematic review and meta-analysis
  • +1
  • luqian cui,
  • yingjie chu,
  • yongmei han,
  • shujuan dong
luqian cui
Zhengzhou University People’s Hospital
Author Profile
yingjie chu
Henan Provincial People's Hospital
Author Profile
yongmei han
Zhengzhou University People’s Hospital
Author Profile
shujuan dong
Henan Province People’s Hospital
Author Profile


Abstract Background: Contact-force sensing catheters are widely used in catheter ablation. The technique of high-power ablation has gained a growing attention in recent years. Our purpose of this meta-analysis is to compare the efficacy and safety between higher-power and conventional power ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) by contact-force sensing catheters. Methods: We identified studies through searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Web of Science, Scopus and the Cochrane Library from inception up until July 2020. The primary outcomes were the recurrence of atrial tachyarrhythmia and complications. The secondary outcomes were acute reconnections of pulmonary veins(PVs), ablation time, and the total procedural time. Results: We identified four nonrandomized, observational studies (nROS) involving 231 patients with high-power ablation and 239 patients with conventional power ablation. There were insignificant differences in the recurrence rate of atrial tachyarrhythmia (14.2% versus 20.5%, OR: 0.64, 95%CI: 0.39 to 1.04, Z = 1.82, P = 0.07) and clinical complications (1.7% versus 2.5%, OR: 0.72, 95%CI: 0.21 to 2.47, Z = 0.51, P = 0.61) between high-power versus conventional power ablation. The high-power group was fewer in acute PVs reconnections (P = 0.0001) , shorter in ablation time (P < 0.0001) , and the total procedural time (P < 0.0001) compared with conventional power group. Conclusion: High-power ablation of AF was safe and efficient compared with that of conventional power ablation, and reduced ablation time and the total procedural time.

Peer review status:Published

17 Mar 2021Published in Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology. 10.1007/s10840-021-00975-3