René van Es1, John Hauck2, Vincent J H M van Driel1, Kars Neven1,3,4, Harry van Wessel1, Pieter A Doevendans1,5, Fred H M Wittkampf1. 1. Department of Cardiology, University Medical Center Utrecht-Division of Heart and Lungs, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584CX Utrecht, The Netherlands. 2. St. Jude Medical AF division, St Paul, MN, USA. 3. Department of Rhythmology, Alfried Krupp Krankenhaus, Essen, Germany. 4. Witten/Herdecke University, Witten, Germany. 5. Netherlands Heart Institute, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Abstract
Aims: With multi-electrode catheters, measuring contact force (CF) on each electrode is technically challenging. Present electrical methods, like the electrical coupling index (ECI) may yield false positive values in pulmonary veins. We developed a novel method that measures electrode-interface resistance (IR) by applying a very local electrical field between neighbouring catheter electrodes while measuring voltage between each catheter electrode and a skin patch. The aim of this study was to evaluate the new IR method to measure electrode-tissue contact. Methods and results: In vitro, effects of remote high-impedance structures were studied. In addition, both ECI and IR were directly compared with true electrode-tissue CF. In five pigs, the influence of high-impedance pulmonary tissue on ECI and IR was investigated while navigating the free floating catheter into the caval veins. Inside the left atrium (LA), IR was directly compared with CF. Finally, multi-electrode IR measurements in the LA and inferior pulmonary vein (IPV) were compared. In vitro, IR is much less affected by remote high-impedance structures than ECI (3% vs. 32%). Both IR and ECI strongly relate to electrode-tissue CF (r2 = 0.84). In vivo, and in contrast to ECI, IR was not affected by nearby pulmonary tissue. Inside the LA, a strong relation between IR and CF was found. This finding was confirmed by simultaneous multi-electrode measurements in LA and IPV. Conclusion: Data of the present study suggest that electrode-tissue contact affects the IR while being highly insensitive to remote structures. This method facilitates electrode-tissue contact measurements with circular multi-electrode ablation catheters. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.
Aims: With multi-electrode catheters, measuring contact force (CF) on each electrode is technically challenging. Present electrical methods, like the electrical coupling index (ECI) may yield false positive values in pulmonary veins. We developed a novel method that measures electrode-interface resistance (IR) by applying a very local electrical field between neighbouring catheter electrodes while measuring voltage between each catheter electrode and a skin patch. The aim of this study was to evaluate the new IR method to measure electrode-tissue contact. Methods and results: In vitro, effects of remote high-impedance structures were studied. In addition, both ECI and IR were directly compared with true electrode-tissue CF. In five pigs, the influence of high-impedance pulmonary tissue on ECI and IR was investigated while navigating the free floating catheter into the caval veins. Inside the left atrium (LA), IR was directly compared with CF. Finally, multi-electrode IR measurements in the LA and inferior pulmonary vein (IPV) were compared. In vitro, IR is much less affected by remote high-impedance structures than ECI (3% vs. 32%). Both IR and ECI strongly relate to electrode-tissue CF (r2 = 0.84). In vivo, and in contrast to ECI, IR was not affected by nearby pulmonary tissue. Inside the LA, a strong relation between IR and CF was found. This finding was confirmed by simultaneous multi-electrode measurements in LA and IPV. Conclusion: Data of the present study suggest that electrode-tissue contact affects the IR while being highly insensitive to remote structures. This method facilitates electrode-tissue contact measurements with circular multi-electrode ablation catheters. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.
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: Laura Anna Unger; Leonie Schicketanz; Tobias Oesterlein; Michael Stritt; Annika Haas; Carmen Martínez Antón; Kerstin Schmidt; Olaf Doessel; Armin Luik Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2022-01-24 Impact factor: 4.566
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