Eran Leshem1, Cory M Tschabrunn1, Fernando M Contreras-Valdes1, Israel Zilberman2, Elad Anter3. 1. Harvard-Thorndike Electrophysiology Institute, Cardiovascular Division, Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 2. Biosense Webster, Research and Development, Haifa, Israel. 3. Harvard-Thorndike Electrophysiology Institute, Cardiovascular Division, Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. Electronic address: eanter@bidmc.harvard.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: An in vivo animal thigh model is the standard technique for evaluation of ablation catheter technologies, including efficacy and safety of ablation. However, the biophysics of ablation in a thigh model may not be similar to a beating heart. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare efficacy and safety of ablation between a thigh preparation model and a beating heart. METHODS: In 7 swine, radiofrequency ablation using a 3.5-mm open irrigated catheter (ThermoCool Smart Touch) was performed sequentially in a thigh muscle and in vivo beating ventricles. Ablation was performed at low (30 W for 40 s) and high (40 W for 60 s) energy settings and at similar contact force. Ablation lesions were scanned in high resolution and measured using electronic calipers. RESULTS: A total of 152 radiofrequency ablation lesions were measured (86 thigh and 66 heart). At low energy, lesion width was greater in the thigh model (12.19 ± 1.8 mm vs 8.99 ± 2.1 mm; P <.001), whereas lesion depth was similar between the thigh and heart (5.71 ± 0.8 mm vs 5.95 ± 1.3 mm, respectively; P = .18). The planar cross-sectional lesion area was greater in the thigh model (thigh 54.8 ± 10.8 mm2 vs heart 43.1 ± 16.1 mm2; P <.001). At the high-energy setting, lesion depth, width, and area were all greater in the thigh model (thigh 91.5 ± 16.8 mm2 vs heart 56.0 ± 15.5 mm2; P <.001). The incidence of steam pop and char formation was similar between the models. CONCLUSION: The thigh preparation model is a reasonable technique for evaluation of ablation catheter technology; however it often results in overestimation of lesion size, especially at higher energy settings.
BACKGROUND: An in vivo animal thigh model is the standard technique for evaluation of ablation catheter technologies, including efficacy and safety of ablation. However, the biophysics of ablation in a thigh model may not be similar to a beating heart. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare efficacy and safety of ablation between a thigh preparation model and a beating heart. METHODS: In 7 swine, radiofrequency ablation using a 3.5-mm open irrigated catheter (ThermoCool Smart Touch) was performed sequentially in a thigh muscle and in vivo beating ventricles. Ablation was performed at low (30 W for 40 s) and high (40 W for 60 s) energy settings and at similar contact force. Ablation lesions were scanned in high resolution and measured using electronic calipers. RESULTS: A total of 152 radiofrequency ablation lesions were measured (86 thigh and 66 heart). At low energy, lesion width was greater in the thigh model (12.19 ± 1.8 mm vs 8.99 ± 2.1 mm; P <.001), whereas lesion depth was similar between the thigh and heart (5.71 ± 0.8 mm vs 5.95 ± 1.3 mm, respectively; P = .18). The planar cross-sectional lesion area was greater in the thigh model (thigh 54.8 ± 10.8 mm2 vs heart 43.1 ± 16.1 mm2; P <.001). At the high-energy setting, lesion depth, width, and area were all greater in the thigh model (thigh 91.5 ± 16.8 mm2 vs heart 56.0 ± 15.5 mm2; P <.001). The incidence of steam pop and char formation was similar between the models. CONCLUSION: The thigh preparation model is a reasonable technique for evaluation of ablation catheter technology; however it often results in overestimation of lesion size, especially at higher energy settings.
Authors: Roee S Lazebnik; Brent D Weinberg; Michael S Breen; Jonathan S Lewin; David L Wilson Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Douglas Holmes; Jeffrey M Fish; Israel A Byrd; Jeremy D Dando; Steven J Fowler; Hong Cao; James A Jensen; Harry A Puryear; Larry A Chinitz Journal: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol Date: 2010-11-29
Authors: Hung-Fat Tse; Kenneth L Ripley; Kathy L F Lee; Chung-Wah Siu; John F Van Vleet; William L Pelkey; Chu-Pak Lau Journal: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol Date: 2005-02
Authors: Timm Dickfeld; Ritsushi Kato; Menekem Zviman; Saman Nazarian; Jun Dong; Hiroshi Ashikaga; Albert C Lardo; Ronald D Berger; Hugh Calkins; Henry Halperin Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2006-11-01 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Ayman A Hussein; Carlos Oberti; Oussama M Wazni; Jami A Hegrenes; John A Sral; John Lopez; William Kowalewski; Jacqueline Kattar; Mohamed Kanj; Bruce Lindsay; Walid Saliba Journal: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol Date: 2015-07-23 Impact factor: 1.976
Authors: Michael S Breen; Roee S Lazebnik; Maryann Fitzmaurice; Sherif G Nour; Jonathan S Lewin; David L Wilson Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 4.813
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: José Manuel Alfonso-Almazán; Jorge G Quintanilla; María Jesús García-Torrent; Santiago Laguna-Castro; Cruz Rodríguez-Bobada; Pablo González; Juan José González-Ferrer; Pablo Salinas; Victoria Cañadas-Godoy; Javier Moreno; Luis Borrego-Bernabé; Nicasio Pérez-Castellano; José Jalife; Julián Perez-Villacastín; David Filgueiras-Rama Journal: Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol Date: 2019-03