Why the study?
Does a specific lesion size index (LSI) threshold prevent conduction gaps during pulmonary vein isolation in patients with atrial fibrillation?
Does a specific lesion size index (LSI) threshold prevent conduction gaps during pulmonary vein isolation in patients with atrial fibrillation?
An LSI target of 5.2 may be suitable for effective lesion formation during PVI, while a lower target of 4.0 may be acceptable in the posterior wall to balance efficacy and safety.
LSI thresholds may inform PVI lesion targets; leaves open randomized validation before practice change.
INTRODUCTION: A novel real-time lesion size index (LSI) that incorporates contact force (CF), time, and power has been developed for safe and effective catheter ablation. The optimal LSI was evaluated to eliminate gap formation during pulmonary vein isolation (PVI). METHODS AND RESULTS: Consecutive patients were enrolled, who underwent their first PVI using a fiber-optic CF-sensing catheter for atrial fibrillation between December 2016 and October 2017. The CF parameters, force-time integral (FTI), and LSI for 3095 ablation points in 34 patients were evaluated. The FTI and LSI in the lesions with gaps or dormant conduction (gaps/DC) were significantly lower than those in the lesion without gaps/DC (FTI: 140.5 ± 54.5 and 232.4 ± 121.4 g s, P < 0.0001; LSI: 4.0 ± 0.6 and 4.7 ± 0.9, P < 0.0001, respectively). On receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, the optimal LSI threshold was 4.05 (sensitivity, 63.4%; specificity, 76.3%). The LSI of <5.25 predicted a gap or DC with a high sensitivity (sensitivity, 97.6%; specificity, 25.7%). In the posterior wall, which was 37% thinner than the nonposterior wall, a lower LSI of <3.95 showed a relatively high sensitivity (92.3%) and specificity (65.6%). CONCLUSIONS: The LSI can be used to predict gaps/DC during the PVI procedure. An LSI of 5.2 may be a suitable target for effective lesion formation. An LSI of 4.0 may be acceptable in the posterior wall, especially in areas adjacent to the esophagus.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kanamori et al. (2018) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: