Increasing the Single-Procedure Success Rate of Pulmonary Vein Isolation

Register or Login to View PDF Permissions
Permissions× For commercial reprint enquiries please contact Springer Healthcare:

For permissions and non-commercial reprint enquiries, please visit to start a request.

For author reprints, please email
Average (ratings)
No ratings
Your rating


To improve the single-procedural success and long-term outcomes of catheter ablation techniques for AF, there is a need for durable, contiguous and transmural lesions encircling the pulmonary veins (PV). Measurement of contact force (CF) between the catheter tip and the target tissue can optimise ablation procedures. A new approach to obtain single-procedure durable PV isolation (PVI) using the latest CF technology combined with the CARTO VISITAG™ Module with Ablation Index (Biosense Webster) has been shown in small studies to almost eliminate recurrence of paroxysmal AF at 1-year follow up and to make PVI procedures more reproducible. The use of a standardised workflow is expected to increase the reproducibility of results and to increase the efficiency of PVI procedures.

Disclosure:Mark O’Neill has received research support, honoraria and consulting fees from Biosense Webster; and research support, honoraria and consulting fees from Abbott/St Jude. Mattias Duytschaever has received honoraria for presentation and consulting from Biosense Webster.



Acknowledgements:The authors are grateful to the technical editing support provided by Katrina Mountfort of Medical Media Communications (Scientific) Ltd, which was funded by Biosense Webster.

Correspondence Details:Mattias Duytschaever, St Jan Hospital, Ruddershove 10, Bruges, Belgium 8000 Bruges

Copyright Statement:

The copyright in this work belongs to Radcliffe Medical Media. Only articles clearly marked with the CC BY-NC logo are published with the Creative Commons by Attribution Licence. The CC BY-NC option was not available for Radcliffe journals before 1 January 2019. Articles marked ‘Open Access’ but not marked ‘CC BY-NC’ are made freely accessible at the time of publication but are subject to standard copyright law regarding reproduction and distribution. Permission is required for reuse of this content.

The most common sustained cardiac arrhythmia is AF, which is associated with increased risk of stroke and heart failure, and represents a significant global health burden.1 Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) is the standard treatment for symptomatic, drug resistant paroxysmal and persistent AF.2 Radiofrequency (RF) ablation, the most widely used ablation technique, aims to achieve circumferential ipsilateral PVI by creating contiguous and transmural point-by-point lesions.3 However, pulmonary vein (PV) reconnection following ablation leads to AF recurrences, necessitating repeat ablations, putting patients at increased risk of complications and decreasing the cost-effectiveness of the procedure. Rates of ablation procedures have risen over the last decade,4 but in order for catheter ablation to become standard first-line treatment for AF patients, there is a need for higher and reproducible single-procedure success rates.

CARTO VISITAG Module with Ablation Index (Biosense Webster) is a new technology providing visual lesion representation based on the integration of power, contact force and time parameters to be displayed on the CARTO® 3 System (Biosense Webster). This index was developed to simplify and standardise the workflow for ablating patients with paroxysmal AF (PAF) and support electrophysiologists using the CARTO SMARTTOUCH Technology (Biosense Webster) in reproducing their own successful ablation strategy to achieve PVI. This article will review the literature on optimising efficacy and outcomes with the use of contact force (CF), describe the ‘CLOSE’ protocol – an ablation strategy guided by the CARTO VISITAG Module with Ablation Index – and discuss the need for a reproducible and standard RF ablation strategy.

Contact Force: A Critical Determinant of Lesion Size

RF current at the electrode tissue interface leads to tissue injury. Although RF current cannot be measured directly, RF power and duration can be measured and altered. Because equivalent power and duration applications do not give equivalent lesion sizes, lesion size cannot be reliably assessed in real time. CF is a key parameter to controlling lesion size. It has been clearly demonstrated that CF is a determinant of lesion size; at constant power, tissue temperature and lesion size increased with CF. In addition, the incidence of steam pop and thrombus increased with CF.5

Shah et al.6 have examined the delivery of RF energy during constant contact at 20 g, variable contact with a 20 g peak and 10 g nadir and intermittent contact with a 20 g peak and 0 g nadir with loss of contact. The area under the CF curve was calculated as the force-time integral (FTI). The measured FTI was highest during constant contact, intermediate during variable contact and lowest during intermittent contact and correlated linearly with lesion volume. An estimation of lesion size was possible by combining CF and the duration of RF delivery.6

Ikeda et al. assessed the relationship between lesion size and CF by measuring electrogram amplitude, impedance and electrode temperature in a beating canine heart.7 At constant power and duration of RF delivery, lesion size increased significantly with increasing CF (p<0.01). There was a poor correlation between peak electrode temperature and lesion size. The decrease in impedance during the RF application correlated well with lesion size for lesions in the left ventricle but less well for lesions in the right ventricle.7

Therefore, CF is a critical determinant of lesion size. Increasing CF at constant power increases lesion size. Steam pops are uncommon at CFs <20 g and RF power/duration levels used in the clinical setting. The appropriate CF needed to achieve transmurality with 25–30 W delivery in the thin-walled atrium is lower than for the ventricle.

Clinical Impact of Contact Force Technologies

Currently tested modalities include the IntelliSense® force sensing technology8 (Hansen Medical), Electric Coupling Index (ECI; St Jude Medical), TactiCath™ (St Jude Medical) and ThermoCool SMARTTOUCH® (Biosense Webster) catheters (see Table 1). Assessment of ECI remains challenging. It requires scaling to the individual patient and is repeated every 30 minutes; therefore, it is difficult to compare between patients. In addition, ECI and the nature of its changes during tissue contact are not completely understood. It lacks precise distinction between levels of contact, and may be challenging to interpret at sites of previous ablation injury or spontaneous atrial fibrosis. Both the TactiCath and ThermoCool SMARTTOUCH have been demonstrated to be highly accurate in assessing tip-tissue contact, albeit using quite different force assessment technologies.9

A systematic review and meta-analysis of nine non-randomised studies involving 1,148 patients aimed to evaluate the clinical impact of CF technology. The primary endpoint was relative risk of AF recurrence at follow up. RF duration, total procedure length and fluoroscopy exposure were assessed as secondary outcomes. Compared with standard technology, the use of CF technology showed a 37 % reduction (relative risk [RR] 0.63; p=0.01) in AF recurrence at a median follow up of 12 months and a 7.3-minute reduction (p=0.03) in RF use during ablation. However, there was no significant difference in total procedure length and fluoroscopy exposure between the two groups.10 This analysis also included small early studies.

A multicentre study of 600 patients evaluated the impact of CF-sensing technology on medium-term outcome of AF ablation. First-time AF ablation procedures employing CF-sensing catheters from four centres were matched retrospectively to those without CF-sensing catheters in a 1:2 manner by type of AF. The primary outcome measure was freedom from recurrence of atrial arrhythmia, with fluoroscopy time as a secondary outcome measure. A total of 600 AF ablation procedures (200 using CF and 400 using non-CF catheters) were performed. Of these, 46 % were PAF, 36 % persistent AF and 18 % long-lasting persistent AF. The follow-up duration was 10.0–11.4 months. Similar complication rates were reported in both groups. The use of a CF-sensing catheter independently predicted clinical success in ablating PAF, but not non-PAF. In all cases, the use of CF catheters was associated with reduced fluoroscopy time.11

Further insights can be derived from non-comparative studies. The first published study of the use of CF-ablation catheters in humans was the Touch+ for Catheter Ablation (TOCCATA) study. Patients with PAF underwent PVI using the TactiCath catheter. All patients (n=5) treated with an average CF of <10 g experienced recurrences, whereas 80 % of the patients treated with an average CF of >20 g (n=10) were free from AF recurrence at 12 months. The investigators concluded that CF achieved correlates with clinical outcome.12

In the prospective, multicentre, Prospective Safety Assessment of the ThermoCool SMARTTOUCH SF Family of Contact Force Sensing Catheters for the Radiofrequency Ablation Treatment of Drug Refractory Symptomatic Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation (SMART-AF) study, 160 of 172 enrolled patients from 21 centres underwent AF ablation using the ThermoCool SMARTTOUCH catheter. The majority of procedures employed between 10–25 g. Investigators remained within their individually defined prespecified ranges 73.3 ± 18.4 % of the time. Success rate after 1 year follow up was 74 % when the operator remained in the preset CF range. This improved to 81 % when the investigator stayed within their preselected CF range ≥80 % of the time. Further subanalysis showed that when the CF was within investigator selected range ≥85 % of the time, success rate increased to 88 %.13 Stable CF during RF ablation increases the likelihood of 12-month success.

What About Randomised Trials?

The importance of optimal contact has been demonstrated in the prospective randomised non-inferiority Ablation Catheter Study for Atrial Fibrillation (TOCCASTAR) study, which compared the TactiCath catheter with a non-CF-sensing catheter (NAVISTAR® ThermoCool®; Biosense Webster) in 300 patients undergoing catheter ablation of PAF.14 When the CF arm was stratified into optimal CF (≥90 % ablations with ≥10 g) and non-optimal CF groups, effectiveness was achieved in 75.9 % versus 58.1 %, respectively (p=0.018).

In a recent randomised trial performed at seven UK centres, 117 patients undergoing first-time PAF ablation were randomised to ablation with (CF-on) or without (CF-off) CF data available to the operator. A reduction in acute PV reconnection rates was seen in the CF-on group (22 % versus 32 %, p=0.03) but there was no significant difference in 1-year success rates (49 % versus 52 %, p=0.9). Furthermore, there was no difference in major complication rates, procedural times and fluoroscopy times. The investigators concluded that CF data availability as used in this study was associated with improved catheter control but did not impact on the clinical outcome. This confirms that CF is only one of multiple factors that determine lesion efficacy and safety.15

Three other small prospective randomised studies have compared CF versus non-CF-sensing catheter ablation. These studies have shown that some operators are able to estimate CF with a high degree of accuracy when CF information is not available and may explain why, when the CF information was available, none of these studies demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in long-term outcomes.16–18

Despite the lack of superiority demonstrated by randomised studies, some experts consider their personal experience with CF catheters to be so favourable they would “consider it almost unethical to perform an AF RF ablation with a non-CF-sensing catheter”.19 It is possible that the failure to demonstrate unequivocal benefit can be explained by study design, variability in the catheter and mapping systems used and the absence of target guidelines at the procedural outset. In addition, the operators in the trial were highly skilled.19 Furthermore, although catheter-tissue contact is the single most important determinant of RF lesion formation to which there is access in the electrophysiology laboratory, consistency and contiguity of lesions is more important than absolute level of contact per lesion above a threshold. Objective lesion representation tools such as CARTO VISITAG Module with Ablation Index could provide the means to translate biophysical parameters including CF into a reproducible and reliable delivery of RF lesion sets.

Towards A Standardised Protocol For Durable PVI: The CLOSE Protocol

The CLOSE protocol is a point-by-point approach aiming to enclose PVs with contiguous and optimised RF lesions (Figure 1). This protocol was based upon a prior study from El Haddad et al.20 In this study 42 CF-guided PVI procedures were analysed with the aim of identifying determinants of acute and late gaps after CF-guided PV encircling. Each circle was subdivided into 10 segments. For each segment, the weakest link in the circle was determined. Two independent predictors of durable segments were identified: ablation index (AI) and interlesion distance (ILD). This study suggests that gaps are determined by insufficient lesion depth and/or discontiguity within the deployed RF circle. Vice versa, combining ILDmax ≤6 mm and AImin ≥400 (posterior)/550 (anterior) was associated with a 93 % specificity to predict durable segments (Figure 2).20

It was therefore hypothesised that an RF strategy aiming to enclose the PVs with strict criteria for lesion depth and ILD would lead to durable PV isolation.21 This CLOSE protocol was evaluated in >400 patients with PAF. The protocol involved creating one prespecified circle enclosing the veins. This was nephroid-shaped (towards the carina) (Figure 3) and 10–12 cm at the perimeter per circle. Ablation was performed where the atrial myocardium connects to the PV sleeve, and typically with a >2 cm distance between the ablated anterior and posterior carina. Lesions were closely spaced: an ILDmax ≤6 mm, based on previous study findings20,22,23 and energy (35 W) was delivered to reach a minimal AI ≥400 at the posterior wall and ≥550 at the anterior wall. The AI target was reduced to 300 (corresponding to an application of only 11–12 seconds) in the event of signs of oesophageal injury (pain during local anaesthesia or temperature probe heating during general anaesthesia). The procedural endpoint was not PVI per se but a perfect circle leading invariably to PVI.

More specifically, the CLOSE protocol is performed using the ThermoCool SMARTTOUCH and LASSO® catheter (Biosense Webster). Before RF was undertaken, the circle was pre-designed around the veins based on anatomy, CF, local electrograms and position of the LASSO catheter. Using the CARTO VISITAG Module and respiratory gating, the lesion marker settings were based upon stability (3 mm for 8 seconds) and force (30 % >4 g). Procedures were carried out under sedation or general anaesthesia. A point-by-point contiguous line was created to enclose the PVs. During RF, a size tag 3 mm and real-time ruler were employed. Power settings were as high as reasonably achievable with a maximum of 35 W (30 cc cooling). Following ipsilateral encircling, ILD and AI criteria were systematically verified. The ultimate goal was enclosing the circle with the exact required quantity of RF tags, around 30 per circle (corresponding to an RF time of approximately 15 minutes).

Recently, procedural- and 1-year outcome in 130 patients with PAF were reported by Taghji et al.21 An unprecedented high rate of acute durable PV isolation (98 % adenosine-proof isolation) was paralleled by excellent 1-year outcome. At 12 months, freedom from documented AF/ atrial tachycardia (AT)/ atrial flutter (AFL) was reported in 92.3 % of all patients.21 Recurrence was defined as any AF, AT or AFL >30 seconds on Holter ECGs at 3, 6 and 12 months. Subgroup analysis showed that freedom from documented AF/AT/AFL in patients off antiarrhythmic drug therapy (n=104) was 91.3 %; freedom from documented AF/AT/AFL in patients on antiarrhythmic drug therapy (n=26) was 96.2 %.

Among 235 patients in a safety cohort (130 in the pilot study and 105 in a follow-up study) complications were reported in only three cases (1.2 %). These comprised one transient ischaemic attack-like event (0.42 %), one symptomatic PV stenosis (operator error; 0.42 %) and one femoral artery pseudo aneurysm requiring surgery. No incidences of steam pops, death, stroke or tamponade were reported.

Several other studies evaluating the efficiency, safety and efficacy of CLOSE are ongoing. The ongoing Evaluation of Ablation Index and VISITAG Use for PVI in Patients with PAF (VISTAX) study aims to evaluate an AI- and ILD-guided enclosing strategy in over 300 PAF patients. The study began early in 2017 and is being performed in 19 European centres. The CLOSE-Guided Pulmonary Vein Isolation as Cure for Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation? (CLOSE to CURE) study is a single-centre, patient-controlled trial evaluating CLOSE-guided PVI in 105 PAF patients.24 A subcutaneous loop recorder monitors the patients 2 months before until 3 years after PVI. The last enrolment was in April 2017. The patients are not taking antiarrhythmic drug therapy and oral anticoagulants are stopped when there is absence of arrhythmia, low stroke risk and absence of atrial scar.

In summary, an ablation strategy guided by the CARTO VISITAG Module with Ablation Index and respecting strict criteria of lesion contiguity and lesion depth results in a significant improvement in acute PVI durability and a high single-centre-procedure, arrhythmia-free survival at 1 year (92.3 %). Because of the standardised workflow to reach an objective procedural endpoint, reproducible results are expected across centres and operators.


A growing body of evidence supports the efficacy and safety of CF-sensing technology. To optimise clinical outcomes in PVI, there is a need for a standard RF ablation procedure. Consistency and lesion contiguity are essential in such a procedure. An objective lesion assessment prediction tool such as CARTO VISITAG Module with Ablation Index is also important to achieve a significant improvement in acute PVI durability and a high rate of arrhythmia-free survival at 1 year (92.3 %). The use of a standardised workflow is expected to increase the reproducibility of results across centres and operators, and to increase efficiency of PVI procedure. It should be emphasised that the current approach is limited to only paroxysmal, not necessarily persistent, AF beyond PVI.

The next challenge in PV ablation is to maintain this high durability while avoiding overshoot. Only then will the unique advantage of PV ablation be exploited to its full potential.


  1. Camm AJ, Lip GY, De Caterina R, et al. 2012 focused update of the ESC Guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation: an update of the 2010 ESC Guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation. Developed with the special contribution of the European Heart Rhythm Association. Eur Heart J 2012;33:2719–47.
    Crossref PubMed
  2. 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. Europace 2012;14:528–606.
    Crossref | PubMed
  3. Ouyang F, Bänsch D, Ernst S, et al. Complete isolation of left atrium surrounding the pulmonary veins: new insights from the double-Lasso technique in paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. Circulation 2004;110:2090–6.
    Crossref | PubMed
  4. Kneeland PP, Fang MC. Trends in catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation in the United States. J Hosp Med 2009;4:E1–5.
    Crossref | PubMed
  5. Yokoyama K, Nakagawa H, Shah DC, et al. Novel contact force sensor incorporated in irrigated radiofrequency ablation catheter predicts lesion size and incidence of steam pop and thrombus. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol 2008;1:354–62.
    Crossref | PubMed
  6. Shah DC, Lambert H, Nakagawa H, et al. Area under the real-time contact force curve (force-time integral) predicts radiofrequency lesion size in an in vitro contractile model. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2010;21:1038–43.
    Crossref | PubMed
  7. Ikeda A, Nakagawa H, Lambert H, et al. Relationship between catheter contact force and radiofrequency lesion size and incidence of steam pop in the beating canine heart: electrogram amplitude, impedance, and electrode temperature are poor predictors of electrode-tissue contact force and lesion size. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol 2014;7:1174–80.
    Crossref | PubMed
  8. Dello Russo A, Fassini G, Casella M, et al. Simultaneous assessment of contact pressure and local electrical coupling index using robotic navigation. J Interv Card Electrophysiol 2014;40:23–31.
    Crossref | PubMed
  9. Bourier F, Hessling G, Ammar-Busch S, et al. Electromagnetic Contact-Force Sensing Electrophysiological Catheters: How Accurate is the Technology? J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2016;27:347–50.
    Crossref | PubMed
  10. Afzal MR, Chatta J, Samanta A, et al. Use of contact force sensing technology during radiofrequency ablation reduces recurrence of atrial fibrillation: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Heart Rhythm 2015;12:1990–6.
    Crossref | PubMed
  11. Jarman JW, Panikker S, Das M, et al. Relationship between contact force sensing technology and medium-term outcome of atrial fibrillation ablation: a multicenter study of 600 patients. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2015;26:378–84.
    Crossref | PubMed
  12. Reddy VY, Shah D, Kautzner J, et al. The relationship between contact force and clinical outcome during radiofrequency catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation in the TOCCATA study. Heart Rhythm 2012;9:1789–95.
    Crossref | PubMed
  13. 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;64:647–56.
    Crossref | PubMed
  14. Reddy VY, Dukkipati SR, Neuzil P, et al. Randomized, controlled trial of the safety and effectiveness of a contact force-sensing irrigated catheter for ablation of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: results of the TactiCath contact force ablation catheter study for atrial fibrillation (TOCCASTAR) study. Circulation 2015;132:907–15.
    Crossref | PubMed
  15. 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;13:1761–7.
    Crossref | PubMed
  16. Kimura M, Sasaki S, Owada S, et al. Comparison of lesion formation between contact force-guided and non-guided circumferential pulmonary vein isolation: a prospective, randomized study. Heart Rhythm 2014;11:984–91.
    Crossref | PubMed
  17. Nakamura K, Naito S, Sasaki T, et al. Randomized comparison of contact force-guided versus conventional circumferential pulmonary vein isolation of atrial fibrillation: prevalence, characteristics, and predictors of electrical reconnections and clinical outcomes. J Interv Card Electrophysiol 2015;44:235–45.
    Crossref | PubMed
  18. Pedrote A, Arana-Rueda E, Arce-Leon A, et al. Impact of contact force monitoring in acute pulmonary vein isolation using an anatomic approach. A randomized study. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2016;39:361–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  19. Calkins H. Demonstrating the value of contact force sensing: more difficult than meets the eye. Circulation 2015;132:901–3.
    Crossref | PubMed
  20. 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. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol 2017;10:e004867.
    Crossref | PubMed
  21. Taghji P, El Haddad M, Phlips T, et al. Evaluation of a strategy aiming to enclose the pulmonary veins with contiguous and optimized radiofrequency lesions in paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. JACC Clin Electrophysiol 2017;
    Crossref epub ahead of press.
  22. Park CI, Lehrmann H, Keyl C, et al. Mechanisms of pulmonary vein reconnection after radiofrequency ablation of atrial fibrillation: the deterministic role of contact force and interlesion distance. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2014;25:701–8.
    Crossref | PubMed
  23. Kautzner J, Neuzil P, Lambert H, et al. EFFICAS II: optimization of catheter contact force improves outcome of pulmonary vein isolation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. Europace 2015;17:1229–35.
    Crossref | PubMed
  24. CLOSE-Guided Pulmonary Vein Isolation as Cure for Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation? (CLOSE to CURE) Study. 2017. Available at: (accessed 5 July 2017).