BACKGROUND: The efficient delivery of radiofrequency (RF) energy through an endocardial ablation catheter is affected by variable tissue contact due to cardiac motion with myocardial contraction and respiration. In addition, many operators intentionally move an ablation catheter during the delivery of radiofrequency energy when targeting specific arrhythmias that require lines of conduction block such as atrial flutter and atrial fibrillation. We sought to characterize and quantify any effects of catheter movement and intermittent ablation catheter contact on lesion characteristics. METHODS: An ex vivo model consisting of recently excised viable bovine myocardium, a circulating saline bath at 37 °C, a submersible load cell, and a deflectable sheath with an ablation catheter was assembled. A stepper motor attached to an ablation catheter apparatus was programmed to simulate linear drag lesions and series of point lesions with variable contact using constant force. Lesion volumes were analyzed using a digital micrometer by measuring depth, max width, depth at max width, and surface width and compared. RESULTS: The drag lesion was significantly larger than a pointby-point linear lesion using a constant force of 15 g (2,088± 122 mm3 vs. 1,595±121.6; p =0.01) when controlling for RF time and power. For single point lesion assessment, constant contact lesions were significantly larger than lesions created with intermittent contact using the same duration of RF (194± 68 mm3 vs. 112.5±53; p =0.03). There was no significant difference in lesion size between the constant contact at 60 s and 90-s intermittent contact lesions (194±68 mm3 vs.186±69). CONCLUSIONS: In our ex vivo model, externally irrigated radiofrequency catheters produced drag lesion volumes equal to or larger than those created by a point-by-point method.We also found decreased lesion size due to intermittent contact can be overcome by increasing duration of ablation time.
BACKGROUND: The efficient delivery of radiofrequency (RF) energy through an endocardial ablation catheter is affected by variable tissue contact due to cardiac motion with myocardial contraction and respiration. In addition, many operators intentionally move an ablation catheter during the delivery of radiofrequency energy when targeting specific arrhythmias that require lines of conduction block such as atrial flutter and atrial fibrillation. We sought to characterize and quantify any effects of catheter movement and intermittent ablation catheter contact on lesion characteristics. METHODS: An ex vivo model consisting of recently excised viable bovine myocardium, a circulating saline bath at 37 °C, a submersible load cell, and a deflectable sheath with an ablation catheter was assembled. A stepper motor attached to an ablation catheter apparatus was programmed to simulate linear drag lesions and series of point lesions with variable contact using constant force. Lesion volumes were analyzed using a digital micrometer by measuring depth, max width, depth at max width, and surface width and compared. RESULTS: The drag lesion was significantly larger than a pointby-point linear lesion using a constant force of 15 g (2,088± 122 mm3 vs. 1,595±121.6; p =0.01) when controlling for RF time and power. For single point lesion assessment, constant contact lesions were significantly larger than lesions created with intermittent contact using the same duration of RF (194± 68 mm3 vs. 112.5±53; p =0.03). There was no significant difference in lesion size between the constant contact at 60 s and 90-s intermittent contact lesions (194±68 mm3 vs.186±69). CONCLUSIONS: In our ex vivo model, externally irrigated radiofrequency catheters produced drag lesion volumes equal to or larger than those created by a point-by-point method.We also found decreased lesion size due to intermittent contact can be overcome by increasing duration of ablation time.
Authors: Dipen C Shah; Hendrik Lambert; Hiroshi Nakagawa; Arne Langenkamp; Nicolas Aeby; Giovanni Leo Journal: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol Date: 2010-09
Authors: H Nakagawa; W S Yamanashi; J V Pitha; M Arruda; X Wang; K Ohtomo; K J Beckman; J H McClelland; R Lazzara; W M Jackman Journal: Circulation Date: 1995-04-15 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Albert J Rogers; Ryan T Borne; Grant Ho; William H Sauer; Paul J Wang; Sanjiv M Narayan; Lijun Zheng; Duy T Nguyen Journal: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol Date: 2020-04-27
Authors: Xiaowei Zhao; Xiaoyong Fu; Colin Blumenthal; Yves T Wang; Michael W Jenkins; Christopher Snyder; Mauricio Arruda; Andrew M Rollins Journal: Biomed Opt Express Date: 2018-11-20 Impact factor: 3.732
Authors: Giuseppe Stabile; Antonio De Simone; Francesco Solimene; Assunta Iuliano; Vincenzo La Rocca; Vincenzo Schillaci; Alfonso Panella; Gergana Shopova; Felice Nappi; Francesco Urraro; Giovanni Russo; Giovanni Napolitano; Paola Chiariello Journal: J Atr Fibrillation Date: 2015-04-30
Authors: Antonio Dello Russo; Gaetano Fassini; Michela Casella; Antonio Di Monaco; Stefania Riva; Valentina Romano; Massimo Moltrasio; Fabrizio Tundo; Giuseppe De Martino; Benedetta Majocchi; Vittoria Marino; Eleonora Russo; Francesca Pizzamiglio; Giuseppe Del Giorno; Gemma Pelargonio; Luigi Di Biase; Andrea Natale; Claudio Tondo Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2015-06-23 Impact factor: 1.900
Authors: Paige N Mass; Jacqueline M Contento; Justin D Opfermann; Kohei Sumihara; Rohan N Kumthekar; Charles I Berul Journal: Heart Rhythm O2 Date: 2022-02-22
Authors: Antonio Dello Russo; Gaetano Fassini; Sergio Conti; Michela Casella; Antonio Di Monaco; Eleonora Russo; Stefania Riva; Massimo Moltrasio; Fabrizio Tundo; Giuseppe De Martino; G Joseph Gallinghouse; Luigi Di Biase; Andrea Natale; Claudio Tondo Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2016-01-21 Impact factor: 1.900
Authors: Louisa O'Neill; Rashed Karim; Rahul K Mukherjee; John Whitaker; Iain Sim; James Harrison; Orod Razeghi; Steven Niederer; Tevfik Ismail; Matthew Wright; Mark D O'Neill; Steven E Williams Journal: Europace Date: 2019-12-01 Impact factor: 5.214