Radiofrequency ablation lesions in low-, intermediate-, and normal-voltage myocardium: an in vivo study in a porcine heart model.
Аннотация
AIMS: Contact force (CF) between radiofrequency (RF) ablation catheter and myocardium and ablation index (AI) correlates with RF lesion depth and width in normal-voltage (>1.5 mV) myocardium (NVM). We investigate the impact of CF on RF lesion depth and width in low (<0.5 mV) (LVM) and intermediate-voltage (0.5-1.5 mV) myocardium (IVM) following myocardial infarction. Correlation between RF lesion depth and width evaluated by native contrast magnetic resonance imaging (ncMRI) and gross anatomical evaluation was investigated.
METHODS AND
RESULTS
Twelve weeks after myocardial infarction, 10 pigs underwent electroanatomical mapping and endocardial RF ablations were deployed in NVM, IVM, and LVM myocardium. In vivo ncMRI was performed before the heart was excised and subjected to gross anatomical evaluation. Ninety (82%) RF lesions were evaluated. Radiofrequency lesion depth and width were smaller in IVM and LVM compared with NVM (P < 0.001). Radiofrequency lesion depth and width correlated with CF, AI, and impedance drop in NVM (CF and AI P < 0.001) and IVM (CF and AI depths P < 0.001; CF and AI widths P < 0.05). Native contrast magnetic resonance imaging evaluated RF lesion depth and width correlated with gross anatomical depth and width (NVM and IVM P < 0.001; LVM P < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS
Radiofrequency lesions deployed by similar duration, power and CF are smaller in IVM and LVM than in NVM. Radiofrequency lesion depth and width correlated with CF, AI, and impedance drop in NVM and IVM but not in LVM. Native contrast magnetic resonance imaging may be useful to assess RF lesion depth and width in NVM, IVM, and LVM.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.