Daniel J Friedman1, Jed A Overmann2, Jeffrey M Fish2, Stephen A Gaeta3, John H Tranter2, Riki Thao2, Jonathan P Piccini4. 1. Electrophysiology Section, Duke University Hospital, Durham, North Carolina. 2. Abbott, St Paul, Minnesota. 3. Electrophysiology Section, Duke University Hospital, Durham, North Carolina; Inova Heart and Vascular, Falls Church, Virginia. 4. Electrophysiology Section, Duke University Hospital, Durham, North Carolina. Electronic address: jonathan.piccini@duke.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: During catheter ablation, delivery of radiofrequency (RF) energy to a target site is sometimes interrupted by catheter instability and clinical factors. The impact of interruption of RF delivery on lesion characteristics has not been characterized. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of interruption of RF application on lesion size. METHODS: Forty-two RF ablation lesions (21 left ventricle, 21 right ventricle) were created in the ventricles of 6 swine using power control mode (30 W; target contact force 15g) with 1 of 3 conditions: 15-second ablation (15s), 30-second ablation (30s), or two 15-second ablations (15s×2) at the same site separated by a 2-minute pause. RESULTS: Lesion volume was significantly larger for 30s lesions (501 ± 146 mm3) compared to both 15s×2 (314 ± 98 mm3) and 15s (242 ± 104 mm3) lesions (P <.001 for both pairwise comparisons). Compared to 15s lesions, lesion volume was numerically greater for 15s×2 lesions, but this did not reach statistical significance (P = .087). Differences in lesion volume between 30s and 15s×2 lesions were driven mainly by differences in lesion width (10.7 ± 1.1 mm vs 9.1 ± 1.7 mm; P = .04) rather than depth (9 ± 1.2 mm vs 8.4 ± 1.2 mm; P = .29). There were no differences in mean contact force by group. There was no difference in total force-time integral for the 30s and 15s×2 lesion groups [median 444 (interquartile range 312) g∙s vs 380 (164) g∙s; P = 1]. CONCLUSION: Compared to lesions resulting from continuous RF ablation, lesions resulting from interrupted ablation have a smaller overall lesion volume, predominantly due to smaller lesion width. These data suggest that if disruption in energy delivery occurs, lesions may need closer spacing to avoid gaps.
BACKGROUND: During catheter ablation, delivery of radiofrequency (RF) energy to a target site is sometimes interrupted by catheter instability and clinical factors. The impact of interruption of RF delivery on lesion characteristics has not been characterized. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of interruption of RF application on lesion size. METHODS: Forty-two RF ablation lesions (21 left ventricle, 21 right ventricle) were created in the ventricles of 6 swine using power control mode (30 W; target contact force 15g) with 1 of 3 conditions: 15-second ablation (15s), 30-second ablation (30s), or two 15-second ablations (15s×2) at the same site separated by a 2-minute pause. RESULTS: Lesion volume was significantly larger for 30s lesions (501 ± 146 mm3) compared to both 15s×2 (314 ± 98 mm3) and 15s (242 ± 104 mm3) lesions (P <.001 for both pairwise comparisons). Compared to 15s lesions, lesion volume was numerically greater for 15s×2 lesions, but this did not reach statistical significance (P = .087). Differences in lesion volume between 30s and 15s×2 lesions were driven mainly by differences in lesion width (10.7 ± 1.1 mm vs 9.1 ± 1.7 mm; P = .04) rather than depth (9 ± 1.2 mm vs 8.4 ± 1.2 mm; P = .29). There were no differences in mean contact force by group. There was no difference in total force-time integral for the 30s and 15s×2 lesion groups [median 444 (interquartile range 312) g∙s vs 380 (164) g∙s; P = 1]. CONCLUSION: Compared to lesions resulting from continuous RF ablation, lesions resulting from interrupted ablation have a smaller overall lesion volume, predominantly due to smaller lesion width. These data suggest that if disruption in energy delivery occurs, lesions may need closer spacing to avoid gaps.
Authors: Abdel Hadi El Hajjar; Mario Mekhael; Chao Huang; Charbel Noujaim; Yichi Zhang; Eugene Kholmovski; Tarek Ayoub; Chan Ho Lim; Nassir Marrouche Journal: Front Cardiovasc Med Date: 2022-06-23
Authors: Daniel J Friedman; Jed A Overmann; Jeffrey M Fish; Stephen A Gaeta; John H Tranter; Riki Thao; Jonathan P Piccini Journal: Heart Rhythm O2 Date: 2021-11-06