Massimiliano Maines1, Francesco Peruzza2, Alessandro Zorzi3, Domenico Catanzariti2, Carlo Angheben2, Maurizio Del Greco2. 1. Department of Cardiology, Santa Maria del Carmine Hospital, Corso Verona 4, 38068, Rovereto, Trento, Italy. massimiliano.maines@apss.tn.it. 2. Department of Cardiology, Santa Maria del Carmine Hospital, Corso Verona 4, 38068, Rovereto, Trento, Italy. 3. Department of Cardiac, Thoracic and Vascular Sciences, University of Padova, Padova, Italy.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The electrical coupling index (ECI) (Abbott, USA) is a marker of tissue contact and ablation depth developed particularly for atrial fibrillation treatment. We sought to evaluate if these measures can be also a marker of lesion efficacy during cavotricuspid isthmus (CTI) ablation for typical right atrial flutter. METHODS: We assessed the ECI values in patients undergoing typical right atrial flutter point-by-point ablation guided by the Ensite Velocity Contact™ (St. Jude Medical, now Abbott St. Paul, MN, USA) electroanatomic mapping system. ECI values were collected before, during (at the plateau), and after radiofrequency (RF) delivery. The physician was blinded to ECI and judged ablation efficacy according to standard parameters (impedance drop, local potential reduction, and/or split in two separate potentials). Patients were followed up at 3 and 12 months. RESULTS: Fifteen consecutive patients (11 males, mean age 69.2 ± 10.6 years) with a history of typical right atrial flutter were included in this study. A total of 158 RF applications were assessed (mean 10.5 ± 6.6 per patient, range 6-28). The absolute and percentage ECI variations (pre-/post-ablation) were significantly greater when applications were effective (p < 0.001). A 12% drop in the ECI after ablation was identified by the ROC curve as the best cutoff value to discriminate between effective and ineffective ablation (sensitivity 94%, specificity 100%). Acute success was achieved in all patients with no complications and no recurrences during follow-up. CONCLUSION: The ECI appeared a reliable index to guide CTI ablation. A 12% drop of ECI during radiofrequency energy delivery was highly accurate in identifying effective lesion.
PURPOSE: The electrical coupling index (ECI) (Abbott, USA) is a marker of tissue contact and ablation depth developed particularly for atrial fibrillation treatment. We sought to evaluate if these measures can be also a marker of lesion efficacy during cavotricuspid isthmus (CTI) ablation for typical right atrial flutter. METHODS: We assessed the ECI values in patients undergoing typical right atrial flutter point-by-point ablation guided by the Ensite Velocity Contact™ (St. Jude Medical, now Abbott St. Paul, MN, USA) electroanatomic mapping system. ECI values were collected before, during (at the plateau), and after radiofrequency (RF) delivery. The physician was blinded to ECI and judged ablation efficacy according to standard parameters (impedance drop, local potential reduction, and/or split in two separate potentials). Patients were followed up at 3 and 12 months. RESULTS: Fifteen consecutive patients (11 males, mean age 69.2 ± 10.6 years) with a history of typical right atrial flutter were included in this study. A total of 158 RF applications were assessed (mean 10.5 ± 6.6 per patient, range 6-28). The absolute and percentage ECI variations (pre-/post-ablation) were significantly greater when applications were effective (p < 0.001). A 12% drop in the ECI after ablation was identified by the ROC curve as the best cutoff value to discriminate between effective and ineffective ablation (sensitivity 94%, specificity 100%). Acute success was achieved in all patients with no complications and no recurrences during follow-up. CONCLUSION: The ECI appeared a reliable index to guide CTI ablation. A 12% drop of ECI during radiofrequency energy delivery was highly accurate in identifying effective lesion.
Authors: X Zheng; G P Walcott; J A Hall; D L Rollins; W M Smith; G N Kay; R E Ideker Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2000-12 Impact factor: 1.900
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: Andrea Natale; Vivek Y Reddy; George Monir; David J Wilber; Bruce D Lindsay; H Thomas McElderry; Charan Kantipudi; Moussa C Mansour; Daniel P Melby; Douglas L Packer; Hiroshi Nakagawa; Baohui Zhang; Robert B Stagg; Lee Ming Boo; Francis E Marchlinski Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2014-08-19 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Thomas Gaspar; Haris Sih; Gerhard Hindricks; Charlotte Eitel; Philipp Sommer; Simon Kircher; Sascha Rolf; Arash Arya; Liane Teplitsky; Christopher Piorkowski Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2012-10-09 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Michael A Jones; David Webster; Kelvin C K Wong; Christopher Hayes; Norman Qureshi; Kim Rajappan; Yaver Bashir; Timothy R Betts Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2014-09-19 Impact factor: 1.900
Authors: Christopher Piorkowski; Haris Sih; Philipp Sommer; Stephan P Miller; Thomas Gaspar; Liane Teplitsky; Gerhard Hindricks Journal: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol Date: 2009-12
Authors: Francisco J Pérez; Christine M Schubert; Babar Parvez; Vishesh Pathak; Kenneth A Ellenbogen; Mark A Wood Journal: Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol Date: 2009-06-23
Authors: Mohammed Shurrab; Luigi Di Biase; David F Briceno; Anna Kaoutskaia; Saleem Haj-Yahia; David Newman; Ilan Lashevsky; Hiroshi Nakagawa; Eugene Crystal Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2015-09-21 Impact factor: 5.501