| Literature DB >> 35463774 |
Chi Cai1, Jing Wang1, Hong-Xia Niu1, Jian-Min Chu1, Wei Hua1, Shu Zhang1, Yan Yao1.
Abstract
Background: Although both high-power (HP) ablation and lesion size index (LSI) are novel approaches to make effective lesions during pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) for atrial fibrillation (AF), the optimal LSI in HP ablation for PVI is still unclear. Our study sought to explore the association between LSI and acute conduction gap formation and investigate the optimal LSI in HP ablation for PVI.Entities:
Keywords: atrial fibrillation; catheter ablation; conduction gap; high-power; lesion size index; pulmonary vein isolation; radiofrequency
Year: 2022 PMID: 35463774 PMCID: PMC9021528 DOI: 10.3389/fcvm.2022.869254
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Cardiovasc Med ISSN: 2297-055X
Figure 1(A) Schematic diagrams of target LSI at different PVs segments and distribution of conduction gaps after first-past PVI attempt. (B–D) The actual regional LSI, FTI, and CF at different PVs segments, respectively. LPV, left pulmonary vein; RPV, right pulmonary vein; LSPV, left superior pulmonary vein; LIPV, left inferior pulmonary vein; RSPV, right superior pulmonary vein; RIPV, right inferior pulmonary vein; L1 and R1, anterior inferior segments of LPV and RPV, respectively; L2 and R2, anterior superior segments of LPV and RPV, respectively; L3 and R3, posterior superior segments of LPV and RPV, respectively; L4 and R4, posterior inferior segments of LPV and RPV, respectively.
Baseline clinical and procedure characteristics.
|
| |
|---|---|
| Age, yrs | 57.8 ± 9.8 |
| Male, % | 76 (72.4) |
| BMI, kg/m2 | 26.0 ± 3.1 |
| History of AF, mths | 33.8 ± 30.6 |
| CHA2DS2-VASc score | 1.3 ± 1.2 |
| Paroxysmal AF | 59 (56.2) |
| Persistent AF | 46 (43.8) |
|
| |
| Hypertension | 43 (41.0) |
| Diabetes mellitus | 9 (8.6) |
| Coronary artery disease | 12 (11.4) |
| Stroke | 3 (2.9) |
| Heart failure | 6 (5.7) |
|
| 0.19 ± 0.49 |
| LAD, mm | 39.5 ± 5.5 |
| LVEF, % | 62.0 ± 5.9 |
|
| |
| PVI only | 67 (63.8) |
| Ablation points for PVI | 65.6 ± 10.6 |
| Ablation duration for PVI, min | 30.4 ± 6.8 |
| Fluoroscopy time for PVI, s | 38.0 ± 27.7 |
| Additional line ablation | 38 (36.2) |
The data are presented as the numbers (%) or the mean ± SD. BMI, body mass index; AF, atrial fibrillation; CHA2DS2-VASc score, congestive heart failure, hypertension, age (≥75 years), diabetes, stroke/transient ischemic attack, vascular disease, age (65-74 years), sex female; LAD, left atrial diameter; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; PVI, pulmonary vein isolation.
Ablation lesion results per segment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lesions, n | 6842 | 966 | 929 | 711 | 663 | 866 | 946 | 878 | 883 |
| Max CF, g | 29.3 ± 14.7 | 26.6 ± 14.6 | 22.4 ± 11.9 | 27.0 ± 13.5 | 25.9 ± 10.7 | 30.1 ± 14.2 | 26.5 ± 10.7 | 38.5 ± 16.3 | 36.5 ± 16.3 |
| Min CF, g | 1.0 ± 1.5 | 0.9 ± 1.7 | 1.2 ± 1.7 | 1.2 ± 1.5 | 1.2 ± 1.4 | 0.9 ± 1.3 | 1.6 ± 1.7 | 0.7 ± 1.1 | 0.8 ± 1.2 |
| Mean CF, g | 8.4 ± 2.8 | 6.8 ± 2.8 | 7.5 ± 2.6 | 7.9 ± 2.1 | 8.4 ± 2.0 | 9.8 ± 2.9 | 9.8 ± 2.7 | 8.5 ± 2.7 | 8.7 ± 2.5 |
| Max temperature, °C | 37.5 ± 3.2 | 37.4 ± 2.9 | 39.0 ± 3.2 | 36.2 ± 2.7 | 36.0 ± 2.6 | 39.4 ± 3.1 | 39.1 ± 3.2 | 35.7 ± 2.3 | 36.1 ± 2.6 |
| Min temperature, °C | 34.0 ± 2.9 | 33.8 ± 2.6 | 35.3 ± 3.0 | 32.8 ± 2.4 | 32.8 ± 2.3 | 35.7 ± 2.9 | 35.4 ± 2.9 | 32.6 ± 2.1 | 32.9 ± 2.3 |
| Mean temperature, °C | 35.5 ± 2.6 | 35.3 ± 2.4 | 36.6 ± 2.8 | 34.5 ± 2.2 | 34.4 ± 2.2 | 37.0 ± 2.7 | 36.8 ± 2.7 | 34.4 ± 2.0 | 34.6 ± 2.1 |
| Mean Δ-Imp, Ω | 17.3 ± 6.9 | 19.7 ± 8.2 | 18.3 ± 7.1 | 17.4 ± 6.4 | 14.8 ± 5.3 | 17.4 ± 7.0 | 16.4 ± 6.9 | 17.5 ± 6.7 | 16.3 ± 5.6 |
| Mean Δ-Imp, % | 13.8 ± 4.4 | 15.6 ± 5.1 | 14.5 ± 4.6 | 13.6 ± 3.9 | 12.5 ± 3.6 | 13.7 ± 4.2 | 12.9 ± 4.3 | 13.7 ± 4.1 | 13.2 ± 3.8 |
| RF duration, s | 15.4 ± 6.4 | 18.1 ± 8.7 | 19.2 ± 7.8 | 15.0 ± 4.9 | 11.8 ± 3.7 | 15.1 ± 5.4 | 14.6 ± 5.0 | 14.7 ± 5.1 | 13.2 ± 4.5 |
| ILD, mm | 4.3 ± 0.4 | 4.4 ± 0.4 | 4.4 ± 0.5 | 4.3 ± 0.4 | 4.2 ± 0.3 | 4.3 ± 0.4 | 4.6 ± 0.4 | 4.1 ± 0.2 | 4.2 ± 0.3 |
| FTI, gs | 120.6 ± 40.4 | 111.5 ± 44.6 | 133.9 ± 44.0 | 114.5 ± 36.4 | 96.8 ± 29.9 | 138.6 ± 38.9 | 135.1 ± 38.1 | 117.2 ± 34.6 | 109.6 ± 32.9 |
| LSI | 4.6 ± 0.4 | 4.7 ± 0.5 | 4.8 ± 0.4 | 4.4 ± 0.3 | 4.3 ± 0.3 | 4.9 ± 0.4 | 4.9 ± 0.3 | 4.5 ± 0.3 | 4.5 ± 0.3 |
The data are presented as the numbers (%) or the mean ± SD. PV, pulmonary vein; CF, contact force; Δ-Imp, impedance drop; ILD, interlesion distance; FTI, force–time integral; LSI, lesion size index.
p < 0.05 (compared with ablation lesion parameters of respective left and right posterior segments). Abbreviations of pulmonary vein segments are as shown in .
Comparison of ablation lesion characteristics with and without gaps.
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| ||
| Max CF, g | 29.3 ± 14.7 | 23.5 ± 13.0 | 0.008 |
| Min CF, g | 1.0 ± 1.5 | 0.8 ± 1.2 | 0.243 |
| Mean CF, g | 8.5 ± 2.8 | 5.7 ± 2.4 | <0.001 |
| Max temperature, °C | 37.5 ± 3.2 | 36.0 ± 1.6 | <0.001 |
| Min temperature, °C | 34.0 ± 2.9 | 32.7 ± 1.4 | <0.001 |
| Mean temperature, °C | 35.6 ± 2.6 | 34.4 ± 1.4 | <0.001 |
| Mean Δ-Imp, Ω | 17.3 ± 6.9 | 18.3 ± 8.5 | 0.329 |
| Mean Δ-Imp, % | 13.8 ± 4.3 | 13.9 ± 5.3 | 0.816 |
| RF duration, s | 15.4 ± 6.4 | 10.5 ± 3.6 | <0.001 |
| ILD, mm | 4.3 ± 0.4 | 4.4 ± 0.3 | 0.031 |
| FTI, gs | 120.9 ± 40.4 | 82.6 ± 24.6 | <0.001 |
| LSI | 4.6 ± 0.4 | 3.9 ± 0.4 | <0.001 |
The data are presented as the mean ± SD. CF, contact force; Δ-Imp, impedance drop; ILD, interlesion distance; FTI, force–time integral; LSI, lesion size index.
Comparison of ablation lesion characteristics of anterior and posterior segments with and without gaps.
|
|
| |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |||
| Max CF, g | 26.5 ± 13.2 | 21.4 ± 12.9 | 0.049 | 32.7 ± 15.7 | 26.6 ± 12.8 | 0.100 |
| Min CF, g | 1.1 ± 1.6 | 0.5 ± 0.9 | 0.001 | 0.9 ± 1.3 | 1.2 ± 1.4 | 0.298 |
| Mean CF, g | 8.5 ± 3.1 | 4.8 ± 2.0 | <0.001 | 8.4 ± 2.4 | 7.1 ± 2.5 | 0.020 |
| Max temperature, °C | 38.7 ± 3.2 | 36.2 ± 1.3 | <0.001 | 36.0 ± 2.5 | 35.6 ± 1.9 | 0.437 |
| Min temperature, °C | 35.1 ± 2.9 | 32.9 ± 1.2 | <0.001 | 32.7 ± 2.3 | 32.3 ± 1.7 | 0.182 |
| Mean temperature, °C | 36.4 ± 2.7 | 34.6 ± 1.2 | <0.001 | 34.5 ± 2.1 | 34.1 ± 1.6 | 0.441 |
| Mean Δ-Imp, Ω | 18.0 ± 7.4 | 18.6 ± 8.7 | 0.638 | 16.6 ± 6.1 | 18.0 ± 8.5 | 0.324 |
| Mean Δ-Imp, % | 14.2 ± 4.7 | 14.3 ± 5.6 | 0.908 | 13.3 ± 3.9 | 13.4 ± 5.0 | 0.920 |
| RF duration, s | 16.9 ± 7.2 | 10.0 ± 3.5 | <0.001 | 13.7 ± 4.8 | 11.2 ± 3.8 | 0.023 |
| ILD, mm | 4.4 ± 0.4 | 4.4 ± 0.3 | 0.721 | 4.2 ± 0.3 | 4.5 ± 0.3 | 0.001 |
| FTI, gs | 129.8 ± 42.9 | 86.4 ± 24.6 | <0.001 | 110.3 ± 34.4 | 77.0 ± 24.3 | <0.001 |
| LSI | 4.8 ± 0.4 | 3.9 ± 0.5 | <0.001 | 4.4 ± 0.3 | 3.9 ± 0.4 | <0.001 |
The data are presented as the mean ± SD. CF, contact force; Δ-Imp, impedance drop; ILD, interlesion distance; FTI, force–time integral; LSI, lesion size index.
The univariable and multivariable logistic regression analysis for predicting acute conduction gap formation.
|
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |
| LSI | 0.58(0.52 - 0.62) | <0.001 | 0.62(0.54 - 0.71) | <0.001 |
| FTI | 0.94(0.93 - 0.95) | <0.001 | 1.02(0.99 - 1.05) | 0.156 |
| Mean CF | 0.61(0.53 - 0.70) | <0.001 | 0.69(0.49 - 0.97) | 0.031 |
| RF duration | 0.80(0.74 - 0.87) | <0.001 | 0.82(0.69 - 0.98) | 0.028 |
| Mean Δ-Imp | 1.02(0.98 - 1.06) | 0.328 | 1.02(0.97 - 1.07) | 0.433 |
| ILD | 1.79(0.90 - 3.57) | 0.095 | 1.08(0.99 - 1.18) | 0.059 |
OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; LSI, lesion size index; FTI, force-time integral; CF, contact force; RF, radiofrequency; Δ-Imp, impedance drop; ILD, interlesion distance.
Figure 2ROC curve analysis for predicting acute conduction gap formation. (A) LSI showed the best predictive value with the AUC curve of 0.87 for all PVs segments. AUC values for FTI, CF, RF duration, Δ-Imp, and ILD were 0.79, 0.78, 0.75, 0.51, and 0.60, respectively. The optimal LSI threshold for predicting gap for all PVs segments was 4.35 (sensitivity 80.0%; specificity 75.4%, p < 0.0001). (B) For anterior wall of PVs, LSI showed the best predictive value with the AUC curve of 0.90. AUC values for FTI, CF, RF duration, Δ-Imp, and ILD were 0.81, 0.85, 0.80, 0.51, and 0.51, respectively. The optimal LSI threshold for anterior wall of PVs was 4.55 (sensitivity 96.3%; specificity 75.8%, p < 0.0001). (C) For posterior wall of PVs, LSI also showed the best predictive value with the AUC curve of 0.85. AUC values for FTI, CF, RF duration, Δ-Imp, and ILD were 0.79, 0.67, 0.67, 0.53, and 0.71, respectively. The optimal LSI threshold for posterior wall of PVs was 3.95 (sensitivity 72.2%; specificity 92.3%, p < 0.0001). ROC, receiver operating characteristic; LSI, lesion size index; AUC, area under the curve; PV, pulmonary vein; FTI, force-time integral; CF, contact force; RF, radiofrequency; Δ-Imp, impedance drop; ILD, interlesion distance.