Suppr超能文献

商业食管温度探头瞬态热响应差异:来自实验研究的见解。

Differences in Transient Thermal Response of Commercial Esophageal Temperature Probes: Insights From an Experimental Study.

机构信息

Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York.

EP Rewards, Boca Raton, Florida.

出版信息

JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2019 Nov;5(11):1280-1288. doi: 10.1016/j.jacep.2019.07.013. Epub 2019 Oct 2.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the differences in transient thermal response (TTR) among various types of commercial esophageal temperature probes (ETPs) in the United States in an experimental model.

BACKGROUND

There is little information regarding the variation in TTR among various commercial ETPs that are approved for atrial fibrillation ablation.

METHODS

We compared various thermodynamic characteristics including, mean thermal time constant (τ), time to rise 1°C (T), time to peak temperature (T), and decay time among 22 different ETPs. Each probe was submerged in a constant-temperature water bath maintained at 37 ± 0.5°C and then quickly (<0.5 s) submerged into another water bath at 45 ± 0.5°C. The experiments were repeated 3 times with each probe. TTR properties were compared on the basis of probe size, design, and number of sensors.

RESULTS

The τ was significantly higher with the larger 24- and 18-F ETPs compared with the smaller 9-F ETPs. Compared with the 18-F probe, T (11.9 s vs. 5 s), T (40.3 s vs. 14.4 s), and T (92.4 s vs. 32.4 s) was shorter with the 9-F ETPs. Solid-shaft ETPs had shorter τ (8.6 s vs. 20.5 s), T (4.4 s vs. 10.1 s) and T (13.5 s vs. 32.5 s) compared with acoustascopes. Multisensor ETPs had shorter τs (3.9 s vs. 9.1 s), T (2.3 s vs. 5 s), and T (6.2 s vs. 14.4 s) compared with single-sensor ETPs.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a significant variation in TTR among the various commercially available ETPs. The use of certain ETPs might result in underestimation of luminal esophageal temperature, which can potentially lead to adverse events.

摘要

目的

本研究旨在通过实验模型评估美国市售食管温度探头(ETP)在瞬态热响应(TTR)方面的差异。

背景

对于批准用于房颤消融的各种商业 ETP,有关 TTR 变化的信息很少。

方法

我们比较了各种热力学特性,包括平均热时间常数(τ)、升温 1°C 的时间(T)、达到峰值温度的时间(T)和衰减时间,涉及 22 种不同的 ETP。每个探头都浸入保持在 37 ± 0.5°C 的恒温水浴中,然后快速(<0.5 秒)浸入另一个保持在 45 ± 0.5°C 的水浴中。每个探头重复进行 3 次实验。根据探头尺寸、设计和传感器数量比较 TTR 特性。

结果

与较小的 9-F ETP 相比,较大的 24-F 和 18-F ETP 的 τ 值明显更高。与 18-F 探头相比,9-F ETP 的 T(11.9 s 比 5 s)、T(40.3 s 比 14.4 s)和 T(92.4 s 比 32.4 s)更短。与声导探头相比,实心轴 ETP 的 τ(8.6 s 比 20.5 s)、T(4.4 s 比 10.1 s)和 T(13.5 s 比 32.5 s)更短。与单传感器 ETP 相比,多传感器 ETP 的 τs(3.9 s 比 9.1 s)、T(2.3 s 比 5 s)和 T(6.2 s 比 14.4 s)更短。

结论

各种市售 ETP 的 TTR 存在显著差异。使用某些 ETP 可能会导致管腔食管温度的低估,从而可能导致不良事件。

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