BACKGROUND: Nonsurgical subxiphoid pericardial access may be useful in ventricular tachycardia ablation and other electrophysiologic procedures but has a risk of right ventricular puncture. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to identify a signature pressure frequency that would help identify the pericardial space and guide access. METHODS: The study consisted of 20 patients (8 women and 12 men; mean age 59.1 +/- 14.2 years; left ventricular ejection fraction 25.2% +/- 12.2%; failed 1.8 +/- 0.5 endocardial ablations; unresponsive to 2.0 +/- 1.0 antiarrhythmic drugs; 6 ischemic cardiomyopathy, 12 nonischemic cardiomyopathy, 2 normal heart; 4 previous sternotomy) undergoing epicardial ventricular tachycardia ablation. After pericardial access was obtained, a 10Fr long sheath was used to record pressure inside the pericardium and pleural space. Pressures were analyzed using a fast Fourier transform to identify dominant frequencies in each chamber. RESULTS: Mean pressures in the pleural space and the pericardium were not different (7.7 +/- 1.9 mmHg vs 7.8 +/- 0.9 mmHg, respectively). However, the pericardial space in each patient demonstrated two frequency peaks that correlated with heart rate (1.16 +/- 0.21 Hz) and respiratory rate (0.20 +/- 0.01 Hz), whereas the pleural space in each patient had a single peak correlating with respiratory rate (0.20 +/- 0.01 Hz). CONCLUSION: The pericardial space demonstrates a signature pressure frequency that is significantly different from the surrounding space. This difference may make minimally invasive subxiphoid pericardial access safer for nonsurgeons and may have important implications for electrophysiologic procedures. Copyright 2010 Heart Rhythm Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND: Nonsurgical subxiphoid pericardial access may be useful in ventricular tachycardia ablation and other electrophysiologic procedures but has a risk of right ventricular puncture. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to identify a signature pressure frequency that would help identify the pericardial space and guide access. METHODS: The study consisted of 20 patients (8 women and 12 men; mean age 59.1 +/- 14.2 years; left ventricular ejection fraction 25.2% +/- 12.2%; failed 1.8 +/- 0.5 endocardial ablations; unresponsive to 2.0 +/- 1.0 antiarrhythmic drugs; 6 ischemic cardiomyopathy, 12 nonischemic cardiomyopathy, 2 normal heart; 4 previous sternotomy) undergoing epicardial ventricular tachycardia ablation. After pericardial access was obtained, a 10Fr long sheath was used to record pressure inside the pericardium and pleural space. Pressures were analyzed using a fast Fourier transform to identify dominant frequencies in each chamber. RESULTS: Mean pressures in the pleural space and the pericardium were not different (7.7 +/- 1.9 mmHg vs 7.8 +/- 0.9 mmHg, respectively). However, the pericardial space in each patient demonstrated two frequency peaks that correlated with heart rate (1.16 +/- 0.21 Hz) and respiratory rate (0.20 +/- 0.01 Hz), whereas the pleural space in each patient had a single peak correlating with respiratory rate (0.20 +/- 0.01 Hz). CONCLUSION: The pericardial space demonstrates a signature pressure frequency that is significantly different from the surrounding space. This difference may make minimally invasive subxiphoid pericardial access safer for nonsurgeons and may have important implications for electrophysiologic procedures. Copyright 2010 Heart Rhythm Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Authors: Jason M Tucker-Schwartz; George T Gillies; Mauricio Scanavacca; Eduardo Sosa; Srijoy Mahapatra Journal: IEEE Trans Biomed Eng Date: 2008-12-02 Impact factor: 4.538
Authors: Takeyoshi Ota; Amir Degani; David Schwartzman; Brett Zubiate; Jeremy McGarvey; Howie Choset; Marco A Zenati Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Paul A Friedman; Samuel J Asirvatham; Charles Dalegrave; Masayoshi Kinoshita; Andrew J Danielsen; Susan B Johnson; David O Hodge; Thomas M Munger; Douglas L Packer; Charles J Bruce Journal: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol Date: 2009-04-02
Authors: Robert A Schweikert; Walid I Saliba; Gery Tomassoni; Nassir F Marrouche; Christopher R Cole; Thomas J Dresing; Patrick J Tchou; Dianna Bash; Salwa Beheiry; Cathy Lam; Logan Kanagaratnam; Andrea Natale Journal: Circulation Date: 2003-09-02 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: T Jared Bunch; Andy Darby; Heidi T May; Michael Ragosta; D Scott Lim; Angela M Taylor; John P DiMarco; Gorav Ailawadi; James R Revenaugh; J Peter Weiss; Srijoy Mahapatra Journal: Europace Date: 2011-11-11 Impact factor: 5.214
Authors: Toby Rogers; Kanishka Ratnayaka; William H Schenke; Anthony Z Faranesh; Jonathan R Mazal; William W O'Neill; Adam B Greenbaum; Robert J Lederman Journal: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2014-10-28 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Wern Yew Ding; Charles M Pearman; Laura Bonnett; Ahmed Adlan; Shui Hao Chin; Nathan Denham; Simon Modi; Derick Todd; Mark C S Hall; Saagar Mahida Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2021-01-29 Impact factor: 1.900