Suppr超能文献

聚焦脉冲电场消融的热分布特性。

Thermal Profiles for Focal Pulsed Electric Field Ablation.

机构信息

Division of Cardiology, McGill University Health Centre, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

Galaxy Medical, San Carlos, California, USA.

出版信息

JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2023 Sep;9(9):1854-1863. doi: 10.1016/j.jacep.2023.05.005. Epub 2023 Jul 19.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Pulsed electrical field (PEF) ablation may cause tissue heating. These changes are reportedly small, but each PEF system and waveform will have a different behavior, and data are lacking.

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to compare the temperature profile of focal point, monopolar biphasic PEF ablation versus radiofrequency (RF).

METHODS

Ablation lesions were performed on perfused thigh muscle of swine. PEF lesions were performed with 3 compatible ablation catheters at the highest (25 amp) energy, and 1 catheter (Tacticath SE) was also used at the 22- and 19-amp levels. Temperature changes in the tissue were measured using fluoroptic temperature probes inserted at the muscle surface, as well as 3 mm and 7 mm below the surface. Temperatures were recorded continuously at baseline, during delivery, and after ablation. Muscle temperatures were compared with those of RF lesions performed with 1 catheter (Tacticath SE) at 30 W for 30 seconds.

RESULTS

PEF ablation with 3energy settings produced small temperature changes. Maximum average temperature rise for PEF for the maximum (25-amp) energy setting (32 lesions) was 7.6 °C, 2.8 °C, and 0.9 °C at the surface, 3-mm depth, and 7-mm depth, respectively. The temperature rise was dose dependent, with lower energy settings yielding less temperature rise. RF ablations (10 lesions) produced temperature increases of 16.6 °C, 39.8 °C, and 9.5 °C at the surface, 3-mm depth, and 7-mm depth, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

PEF caused detectable temperature changes in muscle tissue, which never exceeded 2.8 °C at the 3-mm depth versus baseline. By contrast, RF produced substantial temperature rises. These data support that focal monopolar biphasic energy delivered by this PEF technology retains a favorable thermal safety profile.

摘要

背景

脉冲电场(PEF)消融可能导致组织发热。据报道,这些变化很小,但每个 PEF 系统和波形都会有不同的行为,而且数据也缺乏。

目的

本研究旨在比较聚焦点的温度分布,与单极双相 PEF 消融和射频(RF)相比。

方法

在灌注的猪大腿肌肉上进行消融损伤。使用 3 个兼容的消融导管在最高(25 安培)能量下进行 PEF 损伤,并且还使用 1 个导管(Tacticath SE)在 22 安培和 19 安培水平下进行。使用插入肌肉表面的荧光温度探头以及表面下 3mm 和 7mm 处的温度探头来测量组织中的温度变化。在基线、输送过程中和消融后连续记录温度。将肌肉温度与在 30 瓦下进行 30 秒的 1 个导管(Tacticath SE)进行 RF 损伤的温度进行比较。

结果

使用 3 种能量设置进行 PEF 消融产生了较小的温度变化。最大(25 安培)能量设置(32 个损伤)的 PEF 的最大平均温升为表面处 7.6°C、3mm 深度处 2.8°C 和 7mm 深度处 0.9°C。温升与剂量有关,较低的能量设置导致温升较低。RF 消融(10 个损伤)导致表面处的温升分别为 16.6°C、39.8°C 和 7mm 深度处的 9.5°C。

结论

PEF 导致肌肉组织发生可检测的温度变化,在 3mm 深度处从未超过与基线相比的 2.8°C。相比之下,RF 产生了显著的温升。这些数据支持这种 PEF 技术传递的聚焦单极双相能量保留了有利的热安全特性。

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