Natale, Andrea

Flex Tip Comparative AblationIntroductionNext‐generation catheters have been developed to reduce irrigation volume and preserve power delivery. A novel design uses a flexible tip (FlexAbility™ catheter) that directs flow to the contact surface. Because of recent safety issues with new catheters, we undertook a study in a canine heart with 3 irrigated catheters to compare efficacy and safety.MethodsEndocardial ablation was performed by 2 independent operators in 12 anesthetized canines with the FlexAbility (St. Jude Medical), ThermoCool™ (Biosense Webster), and ThermoCool™ SF (Biosense Webster) catheters. Endocardial RF lesions were delivered with each catheter in all 4 chambers of each animal for 52 ± 16 seconds. Each chamber was randomized to receive ablation from one catheter with recording of safety events. Cardiac pathology was performed with triphenyl tetrazolium chloride stain.ResultsAverage lesion dimensions were not significantly different between the 3 catheters. FlexAbility™ demonstrated a lower risk of steam pops relative to ThermoCool SF (P‐value = 0.013) despite equal mean power and radiofrequency time. High‐temperature generator shutdowns were observed with FlexAbility™ but not with either ThermoCool catheter. High‐temperature shutdowns were associated with larger average impedance drops (28.5 ohms vs. 19 ohms) without compromising lesion size.ConclusionsThe FlexAbility™ tip is safe and effective with no significant difference in lesion sizes compared to both standard ThermoCool and ThermoCool SF. FlexAbility™ has a significantly lower risk of steam pops compared to ThermoCool SF in a beating heart as defined predominantly by an abrupt rise of impedance.