Suppr超能文献

心房射频消融中不同方法确定的病变轮廓与温度场的比较。

The comparison of lesion outline and temperature field determined by different ways in atrial radiofrequency ablation.

作者信息

Tian Zhen, Nan Qun, Nie Xiaohui, Dong Tong, Wang Ruirui

机构信息

College of Life Science and Biomedical Engineering, Beijing University of Technology, No. 100 Pingleyuan, Chaoyang District, Beijing, China.

出版信息

Biomed Eng Online. 2016 Dec 28;15(Suppl 2):124. doi: 10.1186/s12938-016-0251-5.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study is to research the lesion outline and temperature field in different ways in atrial radiofrequency ablation by using finite element method.

METHODS

This study used the method which considered the thermal dosage to determine the boundary between viable and dead tissue, and compared to the 50 °C isotherm results in analyzing lesion outline. Besides, we used Hyperbolic equation which considered the relaxation time to calculate the temperature field and contrasted it with Pennes' bioheat transfer equation.

RESULTS

As the result of the comparison of the lesion outline, when the ablation time was 120 s, the isotherm of the thermal dosage was larger than the 50 °C isotherm and with the increasing of the voltage the gap increased. When the ablation voltage was 30 V, the 50 °C isotherm was larger than the thermal dosage isotherm when the ablation time was less than 160 s. The isotherms overlapped when the time was 160 s. And when the ablation time was more than 160 s, the 50 °C isotherm was less than the thermal dosage isotherm. As to the temperature field, when the ablation voltage was 30 V with the ablation time 120 s the highest temperature decided by Hyperbolic was 0.761 °C higher. The highest temperature changed with relaxation time. In most cases, the highest temperature of the Hyperbolic was higher otherwise the relaxation time was 30-40 s.

CONCLUSIONS

It is better to use CEM43 °C to estimate the lesion outline when the ablative time within 160 s. For temperature distribution, the Hyperbolic reflects the influence of heat transmission speed, so the result is more close to the actual situation.

摘要

背景

本研究旨在采用有限元方法以不同方式研究心房射频消融中的损伤轮廓和温度场。

方法

本研究采用考虑热剂量的方法来确定存活组织和死亡组织之间的边界,并在分析损伤轮廓时与50°C等温线结果进行比较。此外,我们使用考虑弛豫时间的双曲线方程来计算温度场,并将其与彭尼斯生物热传递方程进行对比。

结果

在损伤轮廓比较中,当消融时间为120 s时,热剂量等温线大于50°C等温线,且随着电压升高差距增大。当消融电压为30 V时,消融时间小于160 s时50°C等温线大于热剂量等温线,时间为160 s时等温线重叠,消融时间大于160 s时50°C等温线小于热剂量等温线。对于温度场,当消融电压为30 V且消融时间为120 s时,双曲线方程确定的最高温度高0.761°C。最高温度随弛豫时间变化,在大多数情况下,双曲线方程的最高温度更高,否则弛豫时间为30 - 40 s。

结论

当消融时间在160 s以内时,使用CEM43°C估计损伤轮廓更好。对于温度分布,双曲线方程反映了热传播速度的影响,因此结果更接近实际情况。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/6dd6/5259815/34b836421f06/12938_2016_251_Fig1_HTML.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验