Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
PulseExploreClubsResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeClubsExplore
October 26, 2023Circulation JournalOpen Access

Compared with ablation energy alone, AE*%Imp-drop significantly improved the strength of correlation with lesion maximum depth (ρ=0.83 vs. 0.91, P<0.01), surface area (ρ=0.73 vs. 0.87, P<0.01), and volume (ρ=0.84 vs. 0.94, P<0.01) with normal saline irrigation.

View Full Paper
Ask AI
Bookmark
Share

Why the study?

Input parameters like ablation energy and output parameters like impedance are typically used individually for lesion size prediction, but whether using both simultaneously is more optimal remained unknown.

Does the combination of input and output parameters (AE*%Imp-drop) improve the accuracy of lesion size estimation compared to single parameters during radiofrequency ablation in excised porcine hearts?

Population

283 radiofrequency lesions analyzed in excised porcine hearts

Comparison

AE*%Imp-drop vs single parameters (AE, ∆Imp-drop, %Imp-drop)

Design

Ex vivo animal experimental study

Authors

HIHidehiro IwakawaMTMasateru TakigawaJYJunji Yamaguchi

Discussion

Loading...

Member takes

Overview

May refine ex vivo lesion assessment; leaves open translation to in vivo clinical use.

Structured PICO

Does the combination of input and output parameters (AE*%Imp-drop) improve the accuracy of lesion size estimation compared to single parameters during radiofrequency ablation in excised porcine hearts?

P
Population
Excised porcine hearts (283 lesions analyzed without steam pops: normal saline-irrigation, n=142; half-normal saline-irrigation, n=141)
I
Intervention
Combination of input parameter (ablation energy, AE) and output parameter (relative impedance drop, %Imp-drop) calculated as AE*%Imp-drop
C
Comparator
Single parameters (ablation energy alone, absolute impedance drop, relative impedance drop)
O
Outcome
Correlation with lesion maximum depth, surface area, and volumesurrogate

Combining ablation energy and relative impedance drop provides a more accurate estimation of radiofrequency ablation lesion size than using either parameter alone in an ex vivo model.

Cite This Study

Iwakawa et al. (2023) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a0ff0fe2badbc352aff038dhttps://doi.org/10.1253/circj.cj-23-0574
View Full Paper
Ask AI
Bookmark
Share

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Accurate estimation of lesion metrics in radiofrequency ablation using machine-learning model2026
  2. 2Accurate estimation of lesion metrics in radiofrequency ablation using machine-learning model2025
  3. 3Indication of the radiofrequency induced lesion size by pre-ablation measurements2005 · 31 citations
  4. 4Factors Influencing Lesion Titration in a Monopolar Pulsed-Field Ablation Point Catheter: A Preclinical Study2025 · 3 citations
  5. 5Efficiency and safety of high‐power ablation guided by Lesion size index: An ex vivo porcine heart study2023 · 4 citations