BACKGROUND: In this study, a new method of contact assessment based on the measurement of the local electrical properties at the catheter tip-to-tissue interface was validated in a blinded fashion in vivo in the human left atrium. METHODS: Using a 3-terminal circuit model, local resistance and reactance between catheter tip and tissue surface were measured and combined in an electrical coupling index (ECI). Twelve patients undergoing atrial fibrillation (AF) catheter ablation were included in this study. The catheter was placed in the left atrium at various levels of contact. Blinded to the physician, measurements of electrogram amplitudes, pacing thresholds, and impedances at the catheter tip-to-tissue interface were performed. RESULTS: As the catheter went from noncontact to contact, ECI increased from 118 +/- 15 to 145 +/- 24 (P < 0.0001), electrogram amplitudes increased from 0.14 +/- 0.16 to 2.0 +/- 1.9 mV (P < 0.0001), and pacing thresholds decreased from 13.9 +/- 3.1 to 3.1 +/- 2.0 mA (P < 0.0001). ECI was significantly higher in vascular tissue as compared with trabeculated and smooth myocardium. Patch orientation, operator, body mass index, or clinical type of AF had no influence on ECI values. On a patient-by-patient analysis, true contact/noncontact locations showed a mean ECI difference of 32.7 +/- 11.6 units (95% CI 25.8-39.6). A cut-off value of 5 ECI units was able to separate contact from noncontact with 97% sensitivity and 95% specificity. CONCLUSION: Measurement of local impedances between catheter tip and tissue is feasible to reproducibly describe electrical catheter contact within the left atrium in a clinical setting of AF catheter ablation.
BACKGROUND: In this study, a new method of contact assessment based on the measurement of the local electrical properties at the catheter tip-to-tissue interface was validated in a blinded fashion in vivo in the human left atrium. METHODS: Using a 3-terminal circuit model, local resistance and reactance between catheter tip and tissue surface were measured and combined in an electrical coupling index (ECI). Twelve patients undergoing atrial fibrillation (AF) catheter ablation were included in this study. The catheter was placed in the left atrium at various levels of contact. Blinded to the physician, measurements of electrogram amplitudes, pacing thresholds, and impedances at the catheter tip-to-tissue interface were performed. RESULTS: As the catheter went from noncontact to contact, ECI increased from 118 +/- 15 to 145 +/- 24 (P < 0.0001), electrogram amplitudes increased from 0.14 +/- 0.16 to 2.0 +/- 1.9 mV (P < 0.0001), and pacing thresholds decreased from 13.9 +/- 3.1 to 3.1 +/- 2.0 mA (P < 0.0001). ECI was significantly higher in vascular tissue as compared with trabeculated and smooth myocardium. Patch orientation, operator, body mass index, or clinical type of AF had no influence on ECI values. On a patient-by-patient analysis, true contact/noncontact locations showed a mean ECI difference of 32.7 +/- 11.6 units (95% CI 25.8-39.6). A cut-off value of 5 ECI units was able to separate contact from noncontact with 97% sensitivity and 95% specificity. CONCLUSION: Measurement of local impedances between catheter tip and tissue is feasible to reproducibly describe electrical catheter contact within the left atrium in a clinical setting of AF catheter ablation.
Authors: Hugh Calkins; Karl Heinz Kuck; Riccardo Cappato; Josep Brugada; A John Camm; Shih-Ann Chen; Harry J G Crijns; Ralph J Damiano; D Wyn Davies; John DiMarco; James Edgerton; Kenneth Ellenbogen; Michael D Ezekowitz; David E Haines; Michel Haissaguerre; Gerhard Hindricks; Yoshito Iesaka; Warren Jackman; Jose Jalife; Pierre Jais; Jonathan Kalman; David Keane; Young-Hoon Kim; Paulus Kirchhof; George Klein; Hans Kottkamp; Koichiro Kumagai; Bruce D Lindsay; Moussa Mansour; Francis E Marchlinski; Patrick M McCarthy; J Lluis Mont; Fred Morady; Koonlawee Nademanee; Hiroshi Nakagawa; Andrea Natale; Stanley Nattel; Douglas L Packer; Carlo Pappone; Eric Prystowsky; Antonio Raviele; Vivek Reddy; Jeremy N Ruskin; Richard J Shemin; Hsuan-Ming Tsao; David Wilber Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 1.900
Authors: Michael A Jones; David Webster; Kelvin C K Wong; Christopher Hayes; Norman Qureshi; Kim Rajappan; Yaver Bashir; Timothy R Betts Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2014-09-19 Impact factor: 1.900
Authors: Alexander Wutzler; Martin Huemer; Abdul Shokor Parwani; Florian Blaschke; Wilhelm Haverkamp; Leif-Hendrik Boldt Journal: Arch Med Sci Date: 2014-05-13 Impact factor: 3.318
Authors: Gordon A Begg; James O'Neill; Afzal Sohaib; Ailsa McLean; Chris B Pepper; Lee N Graham; Andrew J Hogarth; Stephen P Page; Richard G Gillott; Nicola Hill; Jacqueline Walshaw; Richard J Schilling; Prapa Kanagaratnam; Muzahir H Tayebjee Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-04-03 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Marijn H A Groen; Vincent J H M van Driel; Kars Neven; Harry van Wessel; Jacques M T de Bakker; Pieter A F Doevendans; Fred H M Wittkampf; Peter Loh; René van Es Journal: Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol Date: 2022-08-02