Steerable versus nonsteerable sheath technology in atrial fibrillation ablation: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
atrial fibrillation
catheter ablation
pulmonary vein isolation
steerable sheath
Journal
Journal of arrhythmia
ISSN: 1880-4276
Titre abrégé: J Arrhythm
Pays: Japan
ID NLM: 101263026
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Aug 2022
Aug 2022
Historique:
received:
01
05
2022
revised:
18
05
2022
accepted:
23
05
2022
entrez:
8
8
2022
pubmed:
9
8
2022
medline:
9
8
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Catheter placement and stability are well-known challenges in atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation. As a result, steerable sheaths (SS) were developed to improve catheter stabilization and maintain proper catheter-tissue contact. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to see if employing a SS influences procedure outcome. We performed a comprehensive literature search for studies that evaluated the efficacy and safety of SS compared to nonsteerable sheaths (NSS) in AF ablation. The primary outcome was the rate of atrial arrhythmia (AA) freedom by the time of the last follow-up. The secondary outcomes were the procedure-related complications and procedural characteristics. Risk ratio (RR) or the mean difference (MD) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using the random-effects model. A total of 10 studies, including 967 AF patients (mean age: 59.2 ± 11.1 years, 516 patients managed with SS vs. 454 with NSS), were included. SS group showed a higher rate of freedom of AA compared to NSS (RR: 1.19; 95% CI 1.09-1.29; The SS for AF catheter ablation not only reduced the total procedure time but also significantly increased the rate of successful ablation while maintaining a similar safety profile when compared to the traditional NSS.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35936032
doi: 10.1002/joa3.12742
pii: JOA312742
pmc: PMC9347204
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
570-579Informations de copyright
© 2022 The Authors. Journal of Arrhythmia published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of the Japanese Heart Rhythm Society.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declared no conflict of interest.
Références
BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2021 Aug 9;21(1):387
pubmed: 34372779
Heart Rhythm. 2012 Jul;9(7):1041-1047.e1
pubmed: 22342855
Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2011 Apr;4(2):157-65
pubmed: 21248246
J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2021 Nov 30;:
pubmed: 34850310
Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2017 Jul;10(7):
pubmed: 28687670
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2015 Mar;26(3):266-73
pubmed: 25346514
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2011 Dec;22(12):1331-8
pubmed: 21649779
Europace. 2015 Jul;17(7):1045-50
pubmed: 25662989
Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2014 Feb;7(1):69-75
pubmed: 24446022
Europace. 2009 May;11(5):571-5
pubmed: 19351628
Europace. 2010 Feb;12(2):173-80
pubmed: 19889688
Circulation. 2019 Nov 26;140(22):1779-1788
pubmed: 31630538
J Atr Fibrillation. 2015 Oct 31;8(3):1189
pubmed: 27957200
Clin Cardiol. 2022 May;45(5):482-487
pubmed: 35195273
BMJ. 2003 Sep 6;327(7414):557-60
pubmed: 12958120
Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2013 Apr;6(2):327-33
pubmed: 23515263
Stat Methods Med Res. 2018 Jun;27(6):1785-1805
pubmed: 27683581
Eur J Epidemiol. 2010 Sep;25(9):603-5
pubmed: 20652370
BMJ. 2021 Mar 29;372:n71
pubmed: 33782057
J Innov Card Rhythm Manag. 2021 Dec 15;12(12):4790-4795
pubmed: 34970468
N Engl J Med. 2015 May 7;372(19):1812-22
pubmed: 25946280
Europace. 2010 Mar;12(3):402-9
pubmed: 20083483
Heart Rhythm. 2011 Sep;8(9):1391-7
pubmed: 21699825
Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2008 Jul;31(7):863-73
pubmed: 18684284
JAMA. 2000 Apr 19;283(15):2008-12
pubmed: 10789670
Am J Cardiol. 2013 Oct 15;112(8):1142-7
pubmed: 23831166
Cardiol Ther. 2020 Jun;9(1):45-58
pubmed: 31898209
Recent Pat Cardiovasc Drug Discov. 2013 Dec;8(3):171-7
pubmed: 24597700
J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2016 Oct;47(1):99-107
pubmed: 27189157
Lancet. 1998 Aug 22;352(9128):609-13
pubmed: 9746022
J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2020 Apr;57(3):417-424
pubmed: 30701358