Eduardo Franco1, Daniel Rodríguez Muñoz2, Roberto Matía2, Antonio Hernández-Madrid2, Inmaculada Sánchez Pérez3, José Luis Zamorano2, Javier Moreno2. 1. Arrhythmia Unit, Cardiology Department, University Hospital Ramón y Cajal, Carretera de Colmenar Viejo, Km 9.100, 28034, Madrid, Spain. efranco@academiamir.com. 2. Arrhythmia Unit, Cardiology Department, University Hospital Ramón y Cajal, Carretera de Colmenar Viejo, Km 9.100, 28034, Madrid, Spain. 3. Pediatric Cardiology Department, University Hospital Ramón y Cajal, Madrid, Spain.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Contact force (CF) catheters are useful to address proper contact during ablation. However, interactions between the ablation process, or its associated irrigation flow changes, with the CF sensing may translate into unexpected CF value fluctuations. We aimed to test for unintentional CF value variations during radiofrequency applications at a fixed applied force, with two commercially available catheters (TactiCath™ and SmartTouch™), and to evaluate its theoretical clinical significance by correlating CF-derived automatic ablation algorithms (force-time integral and lesion index) and actual lesion size at two standard CF values. METHODS: Four series of 20 perpendicular epicardial ablations (20 W, 60 s, 17 ml/min) were performed on porcine left ventricle submerged in 37 °C saline. Catheters were mechanically fixed at a constant position and evaluated at 10 and 20 g. CF values were digitally analysed before each application changing irrigation rate (2-17-30 ml/min), and during ablation. Finally, lesions were quantified. RESULTS: Increasing irrigation before ablation led to a slight but significant CF decrease. During ablation, CF showed a reproducible pattern: fast initial decrease, subsequent increase until higher-than-initial values and final plateau phase (CF variation up to 69% at 10 g). CF variability was significantly higher at 10 g and using TactiCath™. There were no major differences in lesion size between catheters at the same initial CF. CF only correlated mildly to lesion measures, and automatic algorithms globally failed to predict lesion size. CONCLUSIONS: CF measured values spontaneously vary during ablation following a predictable pattern (initial decrease, subsequent increase and final plateau). This is especially remarkable applying lower CF.
PURPOSE: Contact force (CF) catheters are useful to address proper contact during ablation. However, interactions between the ablation process, or its associated irrigation flow changes, with the CF sensing may translate into unexpected CF value fluctuations. We aimed to test for unintentional CF value variations during radiofrequency applications at a fixed applied force, with two commercially available catheters (TactiCath™ and SmartTouch™), and to evaluate its theoretical clinical significance by correlating CF-derived automatic ablation algorithms (force-time integral and lesion index) and actual lesion size at two standard CF values. METHODS: Four series of 20 perpendicular epicardial ablations (20 W, 60 s, 17 ml/min) were performed on porcine left ventricle submerged in 37 °C saline. Catheters were mechanically fixed at a constant position and evaluated at 10 and 20 g. CF values were digitally analysed before each application changing irrigation rate (2-17-30 ml/min), and during ablation. Finally, lesions were quantified. RESULTS: Increasing irrigation before ablation led to a slight but significant CF decrease. During ablation, CF showed a reproducible pattern: fast initial decrease, subsequent increase until higher-than-initial values and final plateau phase (CF variation up to 69% at 10 g). CF variability was significantly higher at 10 g and using TactiCath™. There were no major differences in lesion size between catheters at the same initial CF. CF only correlated mildly to lesion measures, and automatic algorithms globally failed to predict lesion size. CONCLUSIONS: CF measured values spontaneously vary during ablation following a predictable pattern (initial decrease, subsequent increase and final plateau). This is especially remarkable applying lower CF.
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: Vivek Y Reddy; Dipen Shah; Josef Kautzner; Boris Schmidt; Nadir Saoudi; Claudia Herrera; Pierre Jaïs; Gerhard Hindricks; Petr Peichl; Aude Yulzari; Hendrik Lambert; Petr Neuzil; Andrea Natale; Karl-Heinz Kuck Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2012-07-20 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Aravinda Thiagalingam; Andre D'Avila; Lori Foley; J Luis Guerrero; Hendrik Lambert; Giovanni Leo; Jeremy N Ruskin; Vivek Y Reddy Journal: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol Date: 2010-02-01
Authors: Andrea Sarkozy; Dipen Shah; Johan Saenen; Juan Sieira; Thomas Phlips; Wim Boris; Mehdi Namdar; Christiaan Vrints Journal: Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol Date: 2015-09-17
Authors: Vivek Y Reddy; Srinivas R Dukkipati; Petr Neuzil; Andrea Natale; Jean-Paul Albenque; Josef Kautzner; Dipen Shah; Gregory Michaud; Marcus Wharton; David Harari; Srijoy Mahapatra; Hendrik Lambert; Moussa Mansour Journal: Circulation Date: 2015-08-10 Impact factor: 29.690