| Literature DB >> 31049825 |
Carla Lázaro1, Teresa Barrio-López1, Eduardo Castellanos1, Mercedes Ortiz1, Martín Arceluz1, Jesús Almendral2.
Abstract
PURPOSE: An important attenuation of the atrial signal recorded with mini-electrodes (ME) embedded in an 8-mm tip was associated with a transmural radiofrequency lesion. Our aim was to assess if parameters obtained from ME or conventional bipoles before applications predict successful atrial lesions.Entities:
Keywords: Ablation; Mini-electrodes; Radiofrequency lesion
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31049825 PMCID: PMC7196083 DOI: 10.1007/s10840-019-00539-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol ISSN: 1383-875X Impact factor: 1.900
Clinical characteristics
| No. cases | 33 |
| Age, years, mean ± SD | 65.7 ± 8.5 |
| Male, | 25 (76) |
| Structural heart disease, | 27 (9) |
| Hypertension, | 15 (45) |
| Diabetes mellitus, | 4 (12) |
| Left ventricular ejection fraction > 55%, | 25 (75) |
| Atrial flutter, | 13 (39) |
| Sinus rhythm, | 20 (60) |
Changes in electrogram voltage and pacing threshold in relation to RF applications. Values are mean ± SD
| Conventional bipole | Mini-electrodes | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-ablation electrogram voltage (mV) | 0.55 ± 0.33 | 0.72 ± 0.68 | 0.023 |
| Post-ablation electrogram voltage (mV) | 0.31 ± 0.28 | 0.14 ± 0.1 | 0.001 |
| Pre-ablation pacing threshold (mA) | 4.7 ± 3.0 | 1.9 ± 2.1 | 0.001 |
| Post-ablation pacing threshold (mA) | 14.1 ± 9.7 | 22.5 ± 10.3 | 0.001 |
| Percent reduction (pre-post ablation) in electrogram voltage | 37.5 ± 42.5 | 66.8 ± 26.1 | 0.001 |
| Percent increase (pre-post ablation) in pacing threshold | 52.6 ± 35.6 | 86.3 ± 22.9 | 0.001 |
Fig. 1Electrogram (EGM) voltage and pacing thresholds pre- and post-ablation, as recorded from the mini-electrodes (ME) and from the conventional tip to ring configuration. Values represent mean and standard error of the mean. See text for discussion
Fig. 2Example of reductions in electrogram voltage after RF applications. The tracings show lead II and bipolar recordings from the conventional electrodes (distal, D, proximal P) and the mini-electrodes (ME) pre- and post-ablation in the same patient and site. Note that pre ablation the voltage of the mini electrodes is higher than that of the conventional recordings. Also note that reductions are seen in all recordings but are more intense in the ME recordings (87% reduction in ME, 45% in the conventional distal bipole)
Fig. 3Reduction in electrogram voltage and increase in pacing threshold as a result of RF applications. Note that variations are significantly more important with mini-electrodes (ME) than with conventional (tip to ring) electrodes
Pre-ablation electrogram voltages and stimulation thresholds in presumably successful and unsuccessful lesions
| Lesion | Successfula | Unsuccessful | |
|---|---|---|---|
| No. (%) | 80 (75) | 27 (25) | N/A |
| Electrogram voltage, mini electrodes, mV | 0.88 ± 0.71 | 0.26 ± 0.18 | 0.0001 |
| Electrogram voltage, tip to ring, mV | 0.54 ± 0.32 | 0.56 ± 0.33 | 0.9 |
| Stimulation threshold, mini electrodes, mA | 1.6 ± 1.7 | 2.8 ± 3.0 | 0.04 |
| Stimulation threshold, tip to ring, mA | 4.2 ± 2.2 | 6.0 ± 4.5 | 0.06 |
| Time to loss of capture, s | 9.9 ± 16.1 | 9.7 ± 8.6 | 0.9 |
| Mean power, W | 23.9 ± 13.2 | 24.7 ± 15.9 | 0.8 |
Values are mean ± SD
aLesions resulting in a decrease in mini-electrode electrogram voltage ≥ 54% were considered successful (see text for discussion)
Fig. 4Pre-ablation electrogram voltage at lesions considered successful or unsuccessful. Note that there is lack of significant difference with the conventional configuration (tip to ring) vs a significant difference with mini-electrodes (ME)
Fig. 5Pre-ablation pacing threshold at lesions considered successful or unsuccessful. Thresholds with the mini-electrodes (ME) were significantly lower at successful sites. Note that there is not a significant difference between the conventional configuration (tip to ring) and mini-electrodes (ME)
Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values (PPV, NPV), and accuracy for the best ME pre ablation voltage and the best ME pre-ablation pacing threshold cut-offs to predict a successful ablation lesion. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confident intervals (CI) of the OR are also provided
| Parameter | Sensitivity | Specificity | PPV | NPV | Accuracy | OR | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ME electrogram voltage > 0.33 mV | 78% | 78% | 91% | 54% | 78% | 12.1 | 4.2–34.4 |
| Pacing threshold < 1.5 mA | 60% | 59% | 81% | 33% | 60% | 2.2 | 0.9–5.3 |
| Electrogram voltage > 0.33 mV and pacing threshold < 1.5 mA | 52% | 85% | 91% | 38% | 61% | 6.3 | 2.0–20.0 |
Fig. 6ROC curves for the mini-electrode pre-ablation electrogram voltage (left panel) and pacing threshold (right panel)
Electrogram voltages and stimulation thresholds in relation to the rhythm at the time of ablation
| Sinus rhythm ( | Atrial flutter ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-ablation electrogram voltage (mV), mini-electrodes | 0.77 ± 0.73 | 0.62 ± 0.53 | 0.2 |
| Pre-ablation electrogram voltage (mV) conventional bipole | 0.58 ± 0.36 | 0.49 ± 0.22 | 0.1 |
| Pre-ablation pacing threshold (mA), mini-electrodes | 1.65 ± 1.89 | 2.5 ± 2.67 | 0.1 |
| Pre-ablation pacing threshold (mA) conventional bipole | 4.12 ± 2.61 | 6.03 ± 3. 65 | 0.01 |
| Percent reduction (pre-post ablation) in electrogram voltage | 66.13 ± 26.43 | 68.03 ± 26.15 | 0.7 |
| Percent increase (pre-post ablation) in pacing threshold | 85.8 ± 25.84 | 87.35 ± 13.49 | 0.7 |