Why the study?
When modeling constant power RFCA, it is important to know how much power is absorbed around the active electrode versus remaining tissues before reaching the dispersive electrode.
The applied power in limited-domain RFCA models is approximately 80% of that applied in full thorax models, validating the use of limited-domain models for estimating clinical power settings.
May support limited-domain RFCA modeling for power estimation; leaves open clinical validation in humans.
Purpose Most modeling studies on radiofrequency cardiac ablation (RFCA) are based on limited-domain models, which means the computational domain is restricted to a few centimeters of myocardium and blood around the active electrode. When mimicking constant power RFCA procedures (e.g., atrial fibrillation ablation) it is important to know how much power is absorbed around the active electrode and how much in the rest of the tissues before reaching the dispersive electrode.Methods 3D thorax full models were built by progressively incorporating different organs and tissues with simplified geometries (cardiac chamber, cardiac wall, subcutaneous tissue and skin, spine, lungs and aorta). Other 2D limited-domain models were also built based on fragments of myocardium and blood. The electrical problem was solved for each model to estimate the spatial power distribution around the active electrode.Results From 79 to 82% of the power was absorbed in a 4 cm-radius sphere around the active electrode in the full thorax model at active electrode insertion depths of between 0.5 and 2.5 mm, while the impedance values ranged from 104 to 118 Ω, which were consistent with those found (from 83 to 103 Ω) in a 4 cm radius cylindrical limited domain model.Conclusion The applied power in limited-domain RFCA models is approximately 80% of that applied in full thorax models, which is equivalent to the power programed in a clinical setting.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Irastorza et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: