References
1. Murray MI, Arnold A, Younis M, Varghese S, Zeiher AM. Cryoballoon
versus radiofrequency ablation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: a
meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Clin Res Cardiol.2018;107(8):658-669.
2. Ganesan AN, Shipp NJ, Brooks AG, et al. Long-term outcomes of
catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and
meta-analysis. J Am Heart Assoc. 2013;2(2):e004549.
3. Hocini M, Condie C, Stewart MT, Kirchhof N, Foell JD. Predictability
of lesion durability for AF ablation using phased radiofrequency: Power,
temperature, and duration impact creation of transmural lesions.Heart Rhythm. 2016;13(7):1521-1526.
4. El Haddad M, Taghji P, Phlips T, et al. Determinants of Acute and
Late Pulmonary Vein Reconnection in Contact Force–Guided Pulmonary Vein
Isolation: Identifying the Weakest Link in the Ablation Chain.Circulation: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology.2017;10(4):e004867.
5. Kottmaier M, Popa M, Bourier F, et al. Safety and outcome of very
high-power short-duration ablation using 70 W for pulmonary vein
isolation in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation.Europace. 2020;22(3):388-393.
6. Reddy VY, Pollak S, Lindsay BD, et al. Relationship Between Catheter
Stability and 12-Month Success After Pulmonary Vein Isolation: A
Subanalysis of the SMART-AF Trial. JACC Clin Electrophysiol.2016;2(6):691-699.
7. Kumar S, Barbhaiya CR, Balindger S, et al. Better Lesion Creation And
Assessment During Catheter Ablation. J Atr Fibrillation.2015;8(3):1189.
8. Rafael A, Heist EK. Techniques to Optimize Catheter Contact Force
during Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation. J Innovations in Cardiac
Rhythm Management. 2015;6(May):1990-1995.
9. Okumura Y, Watanabe I, Kofune M, et al. Effect of catheter tip-tissue
surface contact on three-dimensional left atrial and pulmonary vein
geometries: potential anatomic distortion of 3D ultrasound, fast
anatomical mapping, and merged 3D CT-derived images. J Cardiovasc
Electrophysiol. 2013;24(3):259-266.
10. Goode JS, Jr., Taylor RL, Buffington CW, Klain MM, Schwartzman D.
High-frequency jet ventilation: utility in posterior left atrial
catheter ablation. Heart Rhythm. 2006;3(1):13-19.
11. Hutchinson MD, Garcia FC, Mandel JE, et al. Efforts to enhance
catheter stability improve atrial fibrillation ablation outcome.Heart Rhythm. 2013;10(3):347-353.
12. Aizer A, Cheng AV, Wu PB, et al. Pacing Mediated Heart Rate
Acceleration Improves Catheter Stability and Enhances Markers for Lesion
Delivery in Human Atria During Atrial Fibrillation Ablation. JACC
Clin Electrophysiol. 2018;4(4):483-490.
13. Ali A, Plettenburg DH, Breedveld P. Steerable Catheters in
Cardiology: Classifying Steerability and Assessing Future Challenges.IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2016;63(4):679-693.
14. Piorkowski C, Eitel C, Rolf S, et al. Steerable versus nonsteerable
sheath technology in atrial fibrillation ablation: a prospective,
randomized study. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol.2011;4(2):157-165.
15. Deyell MW, Wen G, Laksman Z, et al. The impact of steerable sheaths
on unblinded contact force during catheter ablation for atrial
fibrillation. J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2019.
16. Marijon E, Fazaa S, Narayanan K, et al. Real-time contact force
sensing for pulmonary vein isolation in the setting of paroxysmal atrial
fibrillation: procedural and 1-year results. J Cardiovasc
Electrophysiol. 2014;25(2):130-137.
17. Andrade JG, Monir G, Pollak SJ, et al. Pulmonary vein isolation
using “contact force” ablation: the effect on dormant conduction and
long-term freedom from recurrent atrial fibrillation—a prospective
study. Heart Rhythm. 2014;11(11):1919-1924.
18. Masuda M, Fujita M, Iida O, et al. Steerable versus non-steerable
sheaths during pulmonary vein isolation: impact of left atrial
enlargement on the catheter-tissue contact force. J Interv Card
Electrophysiol. 2016;47(1):99-107.
19. Rajappan K, Baker V, Richmond L, et al. A randomized trial to
compare atrial fibrillation ablation using a steerable vs. a
non-steerable sheath. Europace. 2009;11(5):571-575.
20. Ullah W, Hunter RJ, McLean A, et al. Impact of steerable sheaths on
contact forces and reconnection sites in ablation for persistent atrial
fibrillation. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2015;26(3):266-273.
21. Natale A, Reddy VY, Monir G, et al. Paroxysmal AF catheter ablation
with a contact force sensing catheter: results of the prospective,
multicenter SMART-AF trial. J Am Coll Cardiol.2014;64(7):647-656.
22. Neuzil P, Reddy VY, Kautzner J, et al. Electrical reconnection after
pulmonary vein isolation is contingent on contact force during initial
treatment: results from the EFFICAS I study. Circulation:
Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology. 2013;6(2):327-333.
23. Pedrote A, Acosta J, Jauregui-Garrido B, Frutos-Lopez M, Arana-Rueda
E. Paroxysmal atrial fibrillation ablation: Achieving permanent
pulmonary vein isolation by point-by-point radiofrequency lesions.World J Cardiol. 2017;9(3):230-240.
24. Chinitz JS, Kapur S, Barbhaiya C, et al. Sites with small impedance
decrease during catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation are associated
with recovery of pulmonary vein conduction. Journal of
cardiovascular electrophysiology. 2016;27(12):1390-1398.
25. Haines DE. Cooking With Radiofrequency Energy: What Is the Right
Recipe? JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2018;4(4):480-482.
26. Calkins H, Kuck KH, Cappato R, et al. 2012 HRS/EHRA/ECAS expert
consensus statement on catheter and surgical ablation of atrial
fibrillation: recommendations for patient selection, procedural
techniques, patient management and follow-up, definitions, endpoints,
and research trial design: a report of the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS)
Task Force on Catheter and Surgical Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation.
Developed in partnership with the European Heart Rhythm Association
(EHRA), a registered branch of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC)
and the European Cardiac Arrhythmia Society (ECAS); and in collaboration
with the American College of Cardiology (ACC), American Heart
Association (AHA), the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), and
the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS). Endorsed by the governing bodies
of the American College of Cardiology Foundation, the American Heart
Association, the European Cardiac Arrhythmia Society, the European Heart
Rhythm Association, the Society of Thoracic Surgeons, the Asia Pacific
Heart Rhythm Society, and the Heart Rhythm Society. Heart Rhythm.2012;9(4):632-696 e621.
27. Ullah W, McLean A, Tayebjee MH, et al. Randomized trial comparing
pulmonary vein isolation using the SmartTouch catheter with or without
real-time contact force data. Heart Rhythm. 2016;13(9):1761-1767.
28. Vassallo F, Cunha C, Serpa E, et al. Comparison of high-power
short-duration (HPSD) ablation of atrial fibrillation using a contact
force-sensing catheter and conventional technique: Initial results.J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2019;30(10):1877-1883.
29. Chinitz LA, Melby DP, Marchlinski FE, et al. Safety and efficiency
of porous-tip contact-force catheter for drug-refractory symptomatic
paroxysmal atrial fibrillation ablation: results from the SMART SF
trial. Europace. 2018;20(FI_3):f392-f400.
30. Nakagawa H, Kautzner J, Natale A, et al. Locations of high contact
force during left atrial mapping in atrial fibrillation patients:
electrogram amplitude and impedance are poor predictors of
electrode-tissue contact force for ablation of atrial fibrillation.Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2013;6(4):746-753.