BACKGROUND: The optimal contact force (CF) for ventricular mapping and ablation remains unvalidated. We assessed CF in different endocardial and epicardial regions during ventricular tachycardia substrate mapping using a CF-sensing catheter (Smartouch; Biosense-Webster) and compared the transseptal versus retroaortic approach. METHODS AND RESULTS: In total, 8979 mapping points with CF, and force vector orientation (VO) were recorded in 21 patients, comprising 13 epicardial, 12 left ventricular (6 transseptal and 6 retroaortic approach), and 12 right ventricular endocardial maps. VO was defined as adequate when the vector was directed toward the myocardium. During epicardial mapping, 46% of the points showed an adequate VO and a median CF of 8 (4-13) g, however, with significant differences among the 8 regions. When VO was inadequate, median CF was higher at 16 (10-24) g (P<0.0001). During left ventricular and right ventricular endocardial mapping, 94% of VO were adequate. Median CF of adequate VO was higher in the left ventricular and right ventricular endocardium than in the epicardium (15 [8-25] and 13 [7-22] g versus 8 [4-13] g, respectively; both P<0.001). Global median left ventricular CF with transseptal approach was not statistically different from retroaortic approach, but CF in the apicoinferior and apicoseptal regions was higher with transseptal approach (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Ventricular mapping demonstrates important regional variations in CF, but in general, CF is higher endocardially than epicardially where poor catheter orientation is associated with higher CF. A transseptal approach may lead to improved contact particularly in the apicoseptal and inferior regions.
BACKGROUND: The optimal contact force (CF) for ventricular mapping and ablation remains unvalidated. We assessed CF in different endocardial and epicardial regions during ventricular tachycardia substrate mapping using a CF-sensing catheter (Smartouch; Biosense-Webster) and compared the transseptal versus retroaortic approach. METHODS AND RESULTS: In total, 8979 mapping points with CF, and force vector orientation (VO) were recorded in 21 patients, comprising 13 epicardial, 12 left ventricular (6 transseptal and 6 retroaortic approach), and 12 right ventricular endocardial maps. VO was defined as adequate when the vector was directed toward the myocardium. During epicardial mapping, 46% of the points showed an adequate VO and a median CF of 8 (4-13) g, however, with significant differences among the 8 regions. When VO was inadequate, median CF was higher at 16 (10-24) g (P<0.0001). During left ventricular and right ventricular endocardial mapping, 94% of VO were adequate. Median CF of adequate VO was higher in the left ventricular and right ventricular endocardium than in the epicardium (15 [8-25] and 13 [7-22] g versus 8 [4-13] g, respectively; both P<0.001). Global median left ventricular CF with transseptal approach was not statistically different from retroaortic approach, but CF in the apicoinferior and apicoseptal regions was higher with transseptal approach (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Ventricular mapping demonstrates important regional variations in CF, but in general, CF is higher endocardially than epicardially where poor catheter orientation is associated with higher CF. A transseptal approach may lead to improved contact particularly in the apicoseptal and inferior regions.
Authors: Edmond M Cronin; Frank M Bogun; Philippe Maury; Petr Peichl; Minglong Chen; Narayanan Namboodiri; Luis Aguinaga; Luiz Roberto Leite; Sana M Al-Khatib; Elad Anter; Antonio Berruezo; David J Callans; Mina K Chung; Phillip Cuculich; Andre d'Avila; Barbara J Deal; Paolo Della Bella; Thomas Deneke; Timm-Michael Dickfeld; Claudio Hadid; Haris M Haqqani; G Neal Kay; Rakesh Latchamsetty; Francis Marchlinski; John M Miller; Akihiko Nogami; Akash R Patel; Rajeev Kumar Pathak; Luis C Saenz Morales; Pasquale Santangeli; John L Sapp; Andrea Sarkozy; Kyoko Soejima; William G Stevenson; Usha B Tedrow; Wendy S Tzou; Niraj Varma; Katja Zeppenfeld Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2020-10 Impact factor: 1.900
Authors: Edmond M Cronin; Frank M Bogun; Philippe Maury; Petr Peichl; Minglong Chen; Narayanan Namboodiri; Luis Aguinaga; Luiz Roberto Leite; Sana M Al-Khatib; Elad Anter; Antonio Berruezo; David J Callans; Mina K Chung; Phillip Cuculich; Andre d'Avila; Barbara J Deal; Paolo Della Bella; Thomas Deneke; Timm-Michael Dickfeld; Claudio Hadid; Haris M Haqqani; G Neal Kay; Rakesh Latchamsetty; Francis Marchlinski; John M Miller; Akihiko Nogami; Akash R Patel; Rajeev Kumar Pathak; Luis C Sáenz Morales; Pasquale Santangeli; John L Sapp; Andrea Sarkozy; Kyoko Soejima; William G Stevenson; Usha B Tedrow; Wendy S Tzou; Niraj Varma; Katja Zeppenfeld Journal: Europace Date: 2019-08-01 Impact factor: 5.214
Authors: Ahmed I Elbatran; Anthony Li; Mark M Gallagher; Riyaz Kaba; Mark Norman; Elijah R Behr; Manav Sohal; Abhay Bajpai; Zia Zuberi; Magdi M Saba Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2020-05-21 Impact factor: 1.900
Authors: Andreas Müssigbrodt; Matthias Grothoff; Borislav Dinov; Jedrzej Kosiuk; Sergio Richter; Philipp Sommer; Ole A Breithardt; Sascha Rolf; Andreas Bollmann; Arash Arya; Gerhard Hindricks Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2015-01-29 Impact factor: 3.411