首页> 外文期刊>Clinical cardiology. >Safety and efficacy of the ThermoCool SmartTouch SurroundFlow catheter for atrial fibrillation ablation: A meta‐analysis
【24h】

Safety and efficacy of the ThermoCool SmartTouch SurroundFlow catheter for atrial fibrillation ablation: A meta‐analysis

机译:热膜SmartTouch环境流出导管的安全性和有效性,用于心房颤动消融:META分析

获取原文
           

摘要

Background The ThermoCool Smarttouch Surroundflow catheter (STSFc) is an advanced catheter, which integrating contact force sensing and surroundflow technology. However, comparative data between STSFc and contact force sensing catheter (Thermocool SmartTouch catheter [STc]) are limited. Hypothesis We thought that STSFc might bring more clinical benefits. The aim of this meta‐analysis was to compare the safety and efficiency between the STSFc and the STc for treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF). Methods The Medline, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for studies comparing STSFc and STc. Results Four trials involving 727 patients were included in the study. Pool‐analyses demonstrated that, as compared STc ablation, STSFc ablation was more beneficial in terms of procedural times (standard mean difference [SMD]: ?0.22; 95% confidence interval [CI], ?0.37 to ?0.07, P = .005) and irrigation fluid volume (SMD: ?1.94; 95% CI, ?2.65 to ?1.22, P ?.0001). There was no significant difference between STSFc and STc (risk ratio [RR]: 1.02; 95% CI: 0.86 to 1.21, P = .79) for free from AF. Evidence of complications were low and similar for both groups (RR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.19‐3.55, P = .80). Additionally, patients administered STSFc ablation tended to have shorter fluoroscopic times (SMD: ?0.20; 95% CI, ?0.63‐0.23, P = .21). Conclusions STSFc ablation was associated with reducing procedural times and irrigation fluid volume. Further, STSFc ablation tended to shorten fluoroscopic times. Therefore, STSFc ablation would be a better choice for AF patients especially in patients with heart failure.
机译:背景技术Thermocool SmartTouch环境流辐射导管(STSFC)是一种先进的导管,其整合接触力传感和环境流程技术。然而,STSFC和接触力传感导管之间的比较数据(热盖SmartTouch导管[STC])受到限制。假设我们认为STSFC可能会带来更多的临床效益。该荟萃分析的目的是比较STSFC和STC之间的安全性和效率,用于治疗心房颤动(AF)。方法搜索MEDLINE,PUBMED,EMBASE和Cochrane库数据库进行比较STSFC和STC的研究。结果研究涉及727名患者的四项试验。池分析证明,在比较的STC消融方面,STSFC消融在程序时间方面更有利(标准平均差异[SMD]:0.22; 95%置信区间[CI],?0.37至0.07,P = .005 )和灌溉液体体积(SMD:α1.94; 95%CI,?2.65至Δ1.22,P <0001)。 STSFC和STC之间没有显着差异(风险比[RR]:1.02; 95%CI:0.86至1.21,P = .79),无自动对焦。两组的并发症证据较低,相似(RR:0.83; 95%CI:0.19-3.55,P = .80)。此外,患者施用的STSFC消融往往具有较短的荧光透视时间(SMD:0.20; 95%CI,α0.63-0.23,p = .21)。结论STSFC消融与减少程序时间和灌溉液体积相关。此外,STSFC消融倾向于缩短荧光透视时间。因此,STSFC消融将是AF患者的更好选择,尤其是心力衰竭患者。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号