Cardiovascular Biomedical Research Unit, Barts Heart Centre, St. Bartholomew's Hospital, Barts Health National Health Service Trust, London, United Kingdom; Cardiology Department, University Hospital Southampton National Health Service Foundation Trust, Southampton, United Kingdom.
Cardiovascular Biomedical Research Unit, Barts Heart Centre, St. Bartholomew's Hospital, Barts Health National Health Service Trust, London, United Kingdom.
JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2017 Oct;3(10):1080-1088. doi: 10.1016/j.jacep.2017.03.011. Epub 2017 Jun 28.
This study sought to assess the impact of ablation power and catheter irrigation during clinical radiofrequency ablation using impedance drop.
In preclinical studies, ablation power and catheter irrigation are determinants of ablation efficacy.
Static 30-s left atrial ablations were delivered in patients undergoing their first atrial fibrillation ablation. Impedance drop during ablation (as a measure of efficacy) was compared using the following: the force time integral (FTI); the FTI-P (a cumulative multiple FTI and ablation power), and ablation index (AI), a weighted algorithm including contact force, power, and duration. Comparison was also made between a conventionally irrigated (SmartTouch [ST]) versus surround flow (STSF) contact force-sensing catheter.
We analyzed 1,013 ablations. For both catheters, the Spearman correlation was higher between impedance drop and AI (rho = 0.89 ST, 0.84 STSF) than FTI-P (rho = 0.71 ST, 0.53 STSF) or FTI (rho = 0.77 ST, 0.52 STSF); p < 0.0005 for each. STSF ablations had lower minimum catheter tip temperatures (25°C [interquartile range (IQR): 25°C to 27°C] vs. 35°C [IQR: 34°C to 36°C]; p < 0.005), and lesser impedance drop per FTI or AI (p < 0.005 for both). For STSF, impedance drop plateaued sooner than for ST with respect to FTI (184g.s vs. 463g.s) and AI (370 AI vs. 430 AI).
AI is a more complete ablation descriptor than is FTI or FTI-P, reflected by a stronger correlation with impedance drop. STSF ablations have lower impedance drop per AI or FTI than ST ablations do, suggesting different targets should be used if ablating guided by impedance drop with STSF. With ST, ablation beyond 430 AI provides minimal additional biophysical efficacy, suggesting an upper limit to use for clinical ablation.
本研究旨在评估使用阻抗降低技术进行临床射频消融时消融功率和导管灌洗对消融效果的影响。
在临床前研究中,消融功率和导管灌洗是消融效果的决定因素。
对首次接受心房颤动消融的患者进行 30 秒的静态左心房消融。使用以下方法比较消融过程中的阻抗降低(作为疗效的衡量标准):力时间积分(FTI);FTI-P(累积多次 FTI 和消融功率)和消融指数(AI),这是一种包括接触力、功率和持续时间的加权算法。还比较了传统灌洗(SmartTouch [ST])与环绕流动(STSF)接触力感应导管之间的差异。
我们分析了 1013 次消融。对于两种导管,阻抗降低与 AI 的 Spearman 相关性均高于 FTI-P(rho = 0.89 ST,0.84 STSF)(rho = 0.71 ST,0.53 STSF)或 FTI(rho = 0.77 ST,0.52 STSF);p < 0.0005。STSF 消融的最小导管尖端温度较低(25°C [四分位距(IQR):25°C 至 27°C] vs. 35°C [IQR:34°C 至 36°C];p < 0.005),且每 FTI 或 AI 的阻抗降低较少(p < 0.005)。对于 STSF,相对于 ST,FTI(184g.s 与 463g.s)和 AI(370 AI 与 430 AI)的阻抗降低更快达到平台期。
AI 比 FTI 或 FTI-P 更能全面描述消融情况,这反映在与阻抗降低的相关性更强。与 ST 相比,STSF 消融的每 AI 或 FTI 的阻抗降低较低,这表明如果使用 STSF 指导阻抗降低消融,应该使用不同的目标。对于 ST,超过 430 AI 的消融提供的额外生物物理疗效极小,这表明临床消融的上限。