Kars Neven1, Vincent van Driel2, Harry van Wessel3, René van Es2, Pieter A Doevendans4, Fred Wittkampf2. 1. Department of Cardiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands; Department of Rhythmology, Alfried Krupp Krankenhaus, Essen, Germany. Electronic address: kars_neven@hotmail.com. 2. Department of Cardiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Cardiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands; St. Jude Medical, Veenendaal, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Cardiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands; ICIN - Netherlands Heart House, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Electroporation can be used as a nonthermal method to ablate myocardial tissue. However, like with all electrical ablation methods, determination of the energy supplied into the myocardium enhances the clinically required controllability over lesion creation. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relationship between the magnitude of epicardial electroporation ablation and the lesion size using an electrically isolating linear suction device. METHODS: In 5 pigs (60-75 kg), the pericardium was opened after medial sternotomy. A custom linear suction device with a single 35 × 6-mm electrode inside a 42-mm-long and 7-mm-wide plastic suction cup was used for electroporation ablation. Single cathodal applications of 30, 100, or 300 J were delivered randomly at 3 different epicardial left ventricular sites. Coronary angiography was performed before ablation, immediately after ablation, and after 3 months survival. Lesion size was measured histologically after euthanization. RESULTS: The mean depth of 30, 100, and 300 J lesions was 3.2 ± 0.7, 6.3 ± 1.8, and 8.0 ± 1.5 mm, respectively (P = .0003). The mean width of 30, 100, and 300 J lesions was 10.1 ± 0.8, 15.1 ± 1.5, and 17.1 ± 1.3 mm, respectively (P<.0001). Significant tissue shrinkage was observed at the higher energy levels. No luminal arterial narrowing was observed after 3 months: 2.3 ± 0.3 mm vs 2.3 ± 0.4 mm (P = .85). CONCLUSION: The relationship between the amount of electroporation energy delivered through a linear suction device with a single linear electrode and the mean myocardial lesion size is significant in the absence of major adverse events or permanent damage to the coronary arteries.
BACKGROUND: Electroporation can be used as a nonthermal method to ablate myocardial tissue. However, like with all electrical ablation methods, determination of the energy supplied into the myocardium enhances the clinically required controllability over lesion creation. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relationship between the magnitude of epicardial electroporation ablation and the lesion size using an electrically isolating linear suction device. METHODS: In 5 pigs (60-75 kg), the pericardium was opened after medial sternotomy. A custom linear suction device with a single 35 × 6-mm electrode inside a 42-mm-long and 7-mm-wide plastic suction cup was used for electroporation ablation. Single cathodal applications of 30, 100, or 300 J were delivered randomly at 3 different epicardial left ventricular sites. Coronary angiography was performed before ablation, immediately after ablation, and after 3 months survival. Lesion size was measured histologically after euthanization. RESULTS: The mean depth of 30, 100, and 300 J lesions was 3.2 ± 0.7, 6.3 ± 1.8, and 8.0 ± 1.5 mm, respectively (P = .0003). The mean width of 30, 100, and 300 J lesions was 10.1 ± 0.8, 15.1 ± 1.5, and 17.1 ± 1.3 mm, respectively (P<.0001). Significant tissue shrinkage was observed at the higher energy levels. No luminal arterial narrowing was observed after 3 months: 2.3 ± 0.3 mm vs 2.3 ± 0.4 mm (P = .85). CONCLUSION: The relationship between the amount of electroporation energy delivered through a linear suction device with a single linear electrode and the mean myocardial lesion size is significant in the absence of major adverse events or permanent damage to the coronary arteries.
Authors: Saurabh Kumar; Chirag R Barbhaiya; Samuel Balindger; Roy M John; Laurence M Epstein; Bruce A Koplan; Usha B Tedrow; William G Stevenson; Gregory F Michaud Journal: J Atr Fibrillation Date: 2015-10-31
Authors: Chance M Witt; Alan Sugrue; Deepak Padmanabhan; Vaibhav Vaidya; Sarah Gruba; James Rohl; Christopher V DeSimone; Ammar M Killu; Niyada Naksuk; Joanne Pederson; Scott Suddendorf; Dorothy J Ladewig; Elad Maor; David R Holmes; Suraj Kapa; Samuel J Asirvatham Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2018-07-09 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Jacob S Koruth; Kenji Kuroki; Jin Iwasawa; Raju Viswanathan; Richard Brose; Eric D Buck; Elina Donskoy; Srinivas R Dukkipati; Vivek Y Reddy Journal: Europace Date: 2020-03-01 Impact factor: 5.214
Authors: Emmanuel Ekanem; Vivek Y Reddy; Boris Schmidt; Tobias Reichlin; Kars Neven; Andreas Metzner; Jim Hansen; Yuri Blaauw; Philippe Maury; Thomas Arentz; Philipp Sommer; Ante Anic; Frederic Anselme; Serge Boveda; Tom Deneke; Stephan Willems; Pepijn van der Voort; Roland Tilz; Moritoshi Funasako; Daniel Scherr; Reza Wakili; Daniel Steven; Josef Kautzner; Johan Vijgen; Pierre Jais; Jan Petru; Julian Chun; Laurent Roten; Anna Füting; Andreas Rillig; Bart A Mulder; Arne Johannessen; Anne Rollin; Heiko Lehrmann; Christian Sohns; Zrinka Jurisic; Arnaud Savoure; Stephanes Combes; Karin Nentwich; Melanie Gunawardene; Alexandre Ouss; Bettina Kirstein; Martin Manninger; Jan Eric Bohnen; Arian Sultan; Petr Peichl; Pieter Koopman; Nicolas Derval; Mohit K Turagam; Petr Neuzil Journal: Europace Date: 2022-09-01 Impact factor: 5.486
Authors: Sahar Avazzadeh; Mahshid H Dehkordi; Peter Owens; Amirhossein Jalali; Barry O'Brien; Ken Coffey; Martin O'Halloran; Howard O Fernhead; David Keane; Leo R Quinlan Journal: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol Date: 2022-08-16 Impact factor: 2.942
Authors: Christopher Livia; Alan Sugrue; Tyra Witt; Murray D Polkinghorne; Elad Maor; Suraj Kapa; Helge I Lehmann; Christopher V DeSimone; Atta Behfar; Samuel J Asirvatham; Christopher J McLeod Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2018-08-07 Impact factor: 5.501