March 26, 2008Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology
A Systematical Analysis of In Vivo Contact Forces on Virtual Catheter Tip/Tissue Surface Contact during Cardiac Mapping and Intervention
Key result
Ablative lesion size was optimized by applying 10-20 grams of contact force (98±69 mm3 vs 40±42 mm3 for <10g, P<0.05), whereas mapping required lower force to avoid image distortions.
Why the study?
Does varying contact force during robotic catheter ablation affect ablative lesion size and electroanatomic map distortion in an in vivo dog model?
Population
12 dogs undergoing atrial ablation
Comparison
Irrigated-tipped ablation at 15 watts for 30… vs Ablation with minimal contact force (<10 grams)
Design
Preclinical
Authors
Discussion
Loading...
Member takes
Implication
Optimizing contact force differentially for ablation versus mapping may improve robotic procedures; leaves open clinical translation from animal models.
Structured PICO
Does varying contact force during robotic catheter ablation affect ablative lesion size and electroanatomic map distortion in an in vivo dog model?
P
Population
12 dogs undergoing atrial ablation
I
Intervention
Irrigated-tipped ablation (flow 17 mL/sec) at 15 watts for 30 seconds with moderate to marked contact force (10-20 grams and ≥20 grams) guided by a robotic catheter remote control system
C
Comparator
Ablation with minimal contact force (<10 grams)
O
Outcome
Ablative lesion volume and electroanatomic map volume/distortionsurrogate
Main Result
Absolute Event Rate: 98% vs 40%
p-value: p=< 0.05
In an in vivo dog model, ablative lesion size is optimized by 10-20 grams of contact force, whereas mapping requires lower force to prevent image distortion.
Cite This Study
Okumura et al. (2008) studied Cardiac mapping and ablation (n=12). Moderate to marked contact force (10-20 and ≥20 grams) vs. Minimal contact force (<10 grams) was evaluated on Ablative lesion volume (p=< 0.05). Ablative lesion size was optimized by applying 10-20 grams of contact force (98±69 mm3 vs 40±42 mm3 for <10g, P<0.05), whereas mapping required lower force to avoid image distortions.