Albert J Rogers1, Ryan T Borne2, Grant Ho2, William H Sauer3, Paul J Wang1, Sanjiv M Narayan1, Lijun Zheng2, Duy T Nguyen1. 1. Section of Cardiac Electrophysiology, Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California. 2. Section of Cardiac Electrophysiology, Division of Cardiology, University of Colorado, Aurora, Colorado. 3. Section of Cardiac Electrophysiology, Division of Cardiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Interrupted ablation is increasingly proposed as part of high-power short-duration radiofrequency ablation (RFA) strategies and may also result from loss of contact from respiratory patterns or cardiac motion. To study the extent that ablation interruption affects lesions. METHODS: In ex vivo and in vivo experiments, lesion characteristics and tissue temperatures were compared between continuous (group 1) and interrupted (groups 2 and 3) RFA with equal total ablation duration and contact force. Extended duration ablation lesions were also characterized from 1 to 5 minutes. RESULTS: In the ex vivo study, continuous RFA (group 1) produced larger total lesion volumes compared with each interrupted ablation lesion group (273.8 ± 36.5 vs 205.1 ± 34.2 vs 174.3 ± 32.3 mm3 , all P < .001). Peak temperatures for group 1 were higher at 3 and 5 mm than groups 2 and 3. In vivo, continuous ablation resulted in larger lesions, greater lesion depths, and higher tissue temperatures. Longer ablation durations created larger lesion volumes and increased lesion depths. However, after 3 minutes of ablation, the rate of lesion volume, and depth formation decreased. CONCLUSIONS: Continuous RFA delivery resulted in larger and deeper lesions with higher tissue temperatures compared with interrupted ablation. This study may have implications for high-power short duration ablation strategies, motivates strategies to reduce variations in ablation delivery, and provides an upper limit for ablation duration beyond which power delivery has diminishing returns.
BACKGROUND: Interrupted ablation is increasingly proposed as part of high-power short-duration radiofrequency ablation (RFA) strategies and may also result from loss of contact from respiratory patterns or cardiac motion. To study the extent that ablation interruption affects lesions. METHODS: In ex vivo and in vivo experiments, lesion characteristics and tissue temperatures were compared between continuous (group 1) and interrupted (groups 2 and 3) RFA with equal total ablation duration and contact force. Extended duration ablation lesions were also characterized from 1 to 5 minutes. RESULTS: In the ex vivo study, continuous RFA (group 1) produced larger total lesion volumes compared with each interrupted ablation lesion group (273.8 ± 36.5 vs 205.1 ± 34.2 vs 174.3 ± 32.3 mm3 , all P < .001). Peak temperatures for group 1 were higher at 3 and 5 mm than groups 2 and 3. In vivo, continuous ablation resulted in larger lesions, greater lesion depths, and higher tissue temperatures. Longer ablation durations created larger lesion volumes and increased lesion depths. However, after 3 minutes of ablation, the rate of lesion volume, and depth formation decreased. CONCLUSIONS: Continuous RFA delivery resulted in larger and deeper lesions with higher tissue temperatures compared with interrupted ablation. This study may have implications for high-power short duration ablation strategies, motivates strategies to reduce variations in ablation delivery, and provides an upper limit for ablation duration beyond which power delivery has diminishing returns.
Authors: Saurabh Kumar; Joseph B Morton; Karen Halloran; Steven J Spence; Geoffrey Lee; Michael C G Wong; Peter M Kistler; Jonathan M Kalman Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2012-02-14 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Bhradeev Sivasambu; Joe B Hakim; Viachaslau Barodka; Jonathan Chrispin; Ronald D Berger; Hiroshi Ashikaga; Luisa Ciuffo; Susumu Tao; Hugh Calkins; Joseph E Marine; Natalia Trayanova; David D Spragg Journal: JACC Clin Electrophysiol Date: 2018-11-01
Authors: Matthew Wright; Erik Harks; Szabolcs Deladi; Steven Fokkenrood; Rob Brink; Harm Belt; Alexander F Kolen; Darrell Rankin; William Stoffregen; Debra A Cockayne; Joseph Cefalu; David E Haines Journal: JACC Clin Electrophysiol Date: 2018-05-30
Authors: James Gabriels; Joseph Donnelly; Mohammad Khan; Diana Anca; Stuart Beldner; Jonathan Willner; Laurence M Epstein; Apoor Patel Journal: JACC Clin Electrophysiol Date: 2019-10
Authors: Duy T Nguyen; Edward P Gerstenfeld; Wendy S Tzou; Paul T Jurgens; Lijun Zheng; Joseph Schuller; Matthew Zipse; William H Sauer Journal: JACC Clin Electrophysiol Date: 2017-05-30
Authors: Walid Saliba; Vivek Y Reddy; Oussama Wazni; Jennifer E Cummings; J David Burkhardt; Michel Haissaguerre; Josef Kautzner; Petr Peichl; Petr Neuzil; Volker Schibgilla; Georg Noelker; Johannes Brachmann; Luigi Di Biase; Conor Barrett; Pierre Jais; Andrea Natale Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2008-06-24 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Santiago Rivera; Maria de la Paz Ricapito; Leandro Tomas; Josefina Parodi; Guillermo Bardera Molina; Rodrigo Banega; Pablo Bueti; Agustin Orosco; Marcelo Reinoso; Milagros Caro; Diego Belardi; Gaston Albina; Alberto Giniger; Fernando Scazzuso Journal: Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol Date: 2016-04
Authors: Mark J Mulder; Michiel J B Kemme; Luuk H G A Hopman; Amaya M D Hagen; Peter M van de Ven; Herbert A Hauer; Giovanni J M Tahapary; Albert C van Rossum; Cornelis P Allaart Journal: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol Date: 2021-11-24 Impact factor: 2.942