Literature DB >> 19017335

Relationship between catheter forces, lesion characteristics, "popping," and char formation: experience with robotic navigation system.

Luigi Di Biase1, Andrea Natale, Conor Barrett, Carmela Tan, Claude S Elayi, Chi Keong Ching, Paul Wang, Amin Al-Ahmad, Mauricio Arruda, J David Burkhardt, Brian J Wisnoskey, Punam Chowdhury, Shari De Marco, Luciana Armaganijan, Kenneth N Litwak, Robert A Schweikert, Jennifer E Cummings.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Popping, char and perforation are complications that can occur following catheter ablation. We measured the amount of grams (g) applied to the endocardium during ablation using a sensor incorporated in the long sheath of a robotic system. We evaluated the relationship between lesion formation, pressure, and the development of complications.
METHODS: Using a robotic navigation system, lesions were placed in the left atrium (LA) at six settings, using a constant duration (40 seconds) and flow rate of either 17 cc/min or 30 cc/min with an open irrigated catheter (OIC). Evidence of complications was noted and lesion location recorded for later analysis at necropsy.
RESULTS: Lesions using 30 Watts (W) were more likely to be transmural at higher (>40 g) than lower (<30 g) pressures (75% vs 25%, P < 0.001). Significantly higher number of lesions using >40 g of pressure demonstrated "popping" and crater formation as compared with lesions with 20-30 g of pressure (41% vs 15%, P = 0.008). A majority of lesions placed using higher power (45 W) with higher pressures (>40 g) were associated with char and crater formation (66.7%). No lesions using 10 g of pressure were transmural, regardless of the power. Lesions placed with a power setting less than 35 W were more likely to result in "relative" sparing of the endocardial surface than lesions at a power setting higher than 35 W (62% vs 33.3%, P = 0.02) regardless of the pressure.
CONCLUSIONS: When using an OIC, lower power settings (<or=35 W) and lower/medium contact pressure were more likely to show a "relative" spared endocardial surface. Overall, contact pressure between 20 g and 30 g and a power setting of 40 W appeared to achieve transmurality by preserving safety.

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 19017335     DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-8167.2008.01355.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol        ISSN: 1045-3873


  38 in total

1.  THERMOCOOL® SMARTTOUCH® CATHETER - The Evidence So Far for Contact Force Technology and the Role of VISITAG™ MODULE.

Authors:  Tina Lin; Feifan Ouyang; Karl-Heinz Kuck; Roland Tilz
Journal:  Arrhythm Electrophysiol Rev       Date:  2014-05-30

Review 2.  State-of-the-art and emerging technologies for atrial fibrillation ablation.

Authors:  Jane Dewire; Hugh Calkins
Journal:  Nat Rev Cardiol       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 32.419

3.  Remote robotic catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation: how fast is it learned and what benefits can be earned?

Authors:  Andreas Rillig; Udo Meyerfeldt; Ralf Birkemeyer; Fabian Treusch; Markus Kunze; Tomislav Miljak; Vlada Zvereva; Werner Jung
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2010-09-28       Impact factor: 1.900

4.  MEMS-Based Flexible Force Sensor for Tri-Axial Catheter Contact Force Measurement.

Authors:  Hardik J Pandya; Jun Sheng; Jaydev P Desai
Journal:  J Microelectromech Syst       Date:  2016-12-22       Impact factor: 2.417

5.  Design of a Magnetic Resonance Imaging Guided Magnetically Actuated Steerable Catheter.

Authors:  Taoming Liu; Nate Lombard Poirot; Tipakorn Greigarn; M Cenk Çavuşoğlu
Journal:  J Med Device       Date:  2017-05-03       Impact factor: 0.582

6.  2017 HRS/EHRA/ECAS/APHRS/SOLAECE expert consensus statement on catheter and surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation.

Authors:  Hugh Calkins; Gerhard Hindricks; Riccardo Cappato; Young-Hoon Kim; Eduardo B Saad; Luis Aguinaga; Joseph G Akar; Vinay Badhwar; Josep Brugada; John Camm; Peng-Sheng Chen; Shih-Ann Chen; Mina K Chung; Jens Cosedis Nielsen; Anne B Curtis; D Wyn Davies; John D Day; André d'Avila; N M S Natasja de Groot; Luigi Di Biase; Mattias Duytschaever; James R Edgerton; Kenneth A Ellenbogen; Patrick T Ellinor; Sabine Ernst; Guilherme Fenelon; Edward P Gerstenfeld; David E Haines; Michel Haissaguerre; Robert H Helm; Elaine Hylek; Warren M Jackman; Jose Jalife; Jonathan M Kalman; Josef Kautzner; Hans Kottkamp; Karl Heinz Kuck; Koichiro Kumagai; Richard Lee; Thorsten Lewalter; Bruce D Lindsay; Laurent Macle; Moussa Mansour; Francis E Marchlinski; Gregory F Michaud; Hiroshi Nakagawa; Andrea Natale; Stanley Nattel; Ken Okumura; Douglas Packer; Evgeny Pokushalov; Matthew R Reynolds; Prashanthan Sanders; Mauricio Scanavacca; Richard Schilling; Claudio Tondo; Hsuan-Ming Tsao; Atul Verma; David J Wilber; Teiichi Yamane
Journal:  Heart Rhythm       Date:  2017-05-12       Impact factor: 6.343

7.  Design and evaluation of safety operation VR training system for robotic catheter surgery.

Authors:  Yu Wang; Shuxiang Guo; Yaxin Li; Takashi Tamiya; Yu Song
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2017-06-30       Impact factor: 2.602

Review 8.  Contact Force and Atrial Fibrillation Ablation.

Authors:  W Ullah; R J Schilling; T Wong
Journal:  J Atr Fibrillation       Date:  2016-02-29

9.  Which is the best catheter to perform atrial fibrillation ablation? A comparison between standard ThermoCool, SmartTouch, and Surround Flow catheters.

Authors:  Luigi Sciarra; Paolo Golia; Andrea Natalizia; Ermenegildo De Ruvo; Serena Dottori; Antonio Scarà; Alessio Borrelli; Lucia De Luca; Marco Rebecchi; Alessandro Fagagnini; Alberto Bandini; Fabrizio Guarracini; Marcello Galvani; Leonardo Calò
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2014-02-21       Impact factor: 1.900

10.  [Catheter ablation of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. Optimal approach and result].

Authors:  Shibu Mathew; Andreas Metzner; Feifan Ouyang; Karl-Heinz Kuck; Roland Richard Tilz
Journal:  Herzschrittmacherther Elektrophysiol       Date:  2013-04-16
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.