Cummings Jennifer E, Barrett Conor D, Litwak Kenneth N, DI Biase Luigi, Chowdhury Punam, Oh Seil, Ching Chi Keong, Saliba Walid I, Schweikert Robert A, Burkhardt J David, DE Marco Shari, Armaganijan Luciana, Natale Andrea
Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Section of Electrophysiology and Pacing, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2008 Jun;19(6):641-4. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-8167.2008.01130.x. Epub 2008 Mar 26.
Evaluation of luminal temperature during left atrial ablation is used clinically; however, luminal temperature does not necessarily reflect temperature within the esophageal wall and poses a risk of atrioesophageal fistula. This animal study evaluates luminal esophageal temperature and its relation to the temperature of the external esophageal tissue during left atrial lesions using the 8 mm solid tip and the open irrigated tip catheters (OIC).
A thermocouple was secured to the external surface of the esophagus at the level of the left atrium of the dogs. Luminal esophageal temperature was measured using a standard temperature probe. In four randomized dogs, lesions were placed using an 8 mm solid tip ablation catheter. In six randomized dogs, lesions were placed using the 3.5 mm OIC. The average peak esophageal tissue temperature when using the OIC was significantly higher than that of the 8 mm tip catheter (88.6 degrees C +/- 15.0 degrees C vs. 62.3 degrees C +/- 12.5 degrees C, P < 0.05). Both OIC and 8 mm tip catheter had significantly higher peak tissue temperatures than luminal temperatures (OIC: 88.6 degrees C +/- 15.0 degrees C vs 39.7 degrees C +/- 0.82 degrees C, P < 0.05) (8 mm: 62.3 degrees C +/- 12.5 degrees C vs 39.0 +/- 0.5 degrees C, P < 0.05). Both catheters achieved peak temperatures faster in the tissue as compared to the lumen of the esophagus, although the tissue temperature peaked significantly faster for the OIC (OIC: 25 seconds vs 90 seconds, P < 0.05) (8 mm: 63 seconds vs 105 seconds, P < 0.05).
Despite the significant difference in actual tissue temperatures, no significant difference was observed in luminal temperatures between the OIC and 8 mm tip catheter.
左心房消融术中管腔内温度的评估已应用于临床;然而,管腔内温度不一定能反映食管壁内的温度,且存在发生心房食管瘘的风险。本动物研究使用8毫米实心尖端导管和开放式灌注尖端导管(OIC)评估左心房消融过程中食管管腔内温度及其与食管外部组织温度的关系。
在犬左心房水平将热电偶固定于食管外表面。使用标准温度探头测量食管管腔内温度。在4只随机分组的犬中,使用8毫米实心尖端消融导管进行损伤。在6只随机分组的犬中,使用3.5毫米OIC进行损伤。使用OIC时食管组织的平均峰值温度显著高于8毫米尖端导管(88.6℃±15.0℃对62.3℃±12.5℃,P<0.05)。OIC和8毫米尖端导管的峰值组织温度均显著高于管腔内温度(OIC:88.6℃±15.0℃对39.7℃±0.82℃,P<0.05)(8毫米:62.3℃±12.5℃对39.0±0.5℃,P<0.05)。与食管管腔相比,两种导管在组织中达到峰值温度的速度都更快,尽管OIC的组织温度达到峰值的速度明显更快(OIC:25秒对90秒,P<0.05)(8毫米:63秒对105秒,P<0.05)。
尽管实际组织温度存在显著差异,但OIC和8毫米尖端导管之间的管腔内温度未观察到显著差异。