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.