Contact Force in Atrial Fibrillation: Role of Atrial Rhythm and Ventricular Contractions: Co-Force Atrial Fibrillation Study

In an experimental model, variable and intermittent contact force (CF) resulted in a significant decrease in lesion volume. In humans, variability of CF during pulmonary vein isolation has not been characterized. Methods and Results-In 20 consecutive patients undergoing CF-guided circumferential pulmonary vein isolation, 914 radiofrequency applications (530 in sinus rhythm and 384 in atrial fibrillation) were analyzed. The variability of the 60% CF range (CF60%) was 17 ± 9.6 g. Hundred seventy-one (19%) applications were delivered with constant, 717 (78%) with variable, and 26 (3%) with intermittent CF. The mean CF and force-time integral were significantly higher during applications with variable than with intermittent or constant CF. There was no significant difference in CF variability, CF60% variability, and force-time integral between applications delivered in sinus rhythm and atrial fibrillation. The main reasons for CF variability were systolo-diastolic heart movement (29%) and respiration (27%). In 10 additional patients, during adenosine-induced atrioventricular block, the minimum CF significantly increased at 19 sites (5.3 ± 4.4 versus 13.4 ± 5.9 g; P < 0.001) and at 16 sites intermittent or variable CF became constant. At only 1 site systolo-diastolic movement remained the main reason for variable CF. Conclusions-CF during pulmonary vein isolation remains highly variable despite efforts to optimize contact. CF and CF parameters were similar during sinus rhythm and atrial fibrillation. The main reasons for CF variability are systolodiastolic heart movement and respiration. The systolo-diastolic peaks and nadirs of CF are because of ventricular contractions at the large majority of pulmonary vein isolation sites.

Adjuvant portal-vein infusion of fluorouracil and heparin in colorectal cancer: A randomised trial

Background. There is conflicting evidence on the efficacy of regional adjuvant chemotherapy, via portal-vein infusion (PVI), after resection of colorectal cancer. We undertook a randomised controlled multicentre trial to investigate the efficacy of PVI (500 mg/m2 fluorouracil plus 5000 IU heparin daily for 7 days). Methods. 1235 of about 1500 potentially eligible patients were randomly assigned surgery plus PVI or surgery alone (control). The patients were followed up for a median of 63 months, with yearly screening for recurrent disease. The primary endpoint was survival; analyses were by intention to treat. Findings. 619 patients in the control group and 616 in the PVI group met eligibility criteria. 164 (26%) control-group patients and 173 (28%) PVI-group patients died. 5-year survival did not differ significantly between the groups (73 vs 72%; 95% CI for difference -6 to 4). The control and PVI groups were also similar in terms of disease-free survival at 5 years (67 vs 65%) and the number of patients with liver metastases (79 vs 77%). Interpretation. PVI of fluorouracil, at a dose of 500 mg/m2 for 7 days, cannot be recommended as the sole adjuvant treatment for high-risk colorectal cancer after complete surgical excision. However, these results cannot eliminate a small benefit when PVI is used at a higher dosage or in combination with mitomycin.