Key result
Concurrent Impella 2.5 causes severe electromagnetic interference in ~9% of magnet-based mapping points.
Why the study?
Hemodynamic instability hinders activation and entrainment mapping during ventricular tachycardia ablation, and electromagnetic interference from the Impella 2.5 device may preclude accurate electroanatomic mapping.
Does concurrent use of a microaxial flow device cause electromagnetic interference during electroanatomic mapping in a canine model?
Does concurrent use of a microaxial flow device cause electromagnetic interference during electroanatomic mapping in a canine model?
Concurrent use of the Impella microaxial flow device causes electromagnetic interference with magnet-based electroanatomic mapping, which can be mitigated by reducing device performance or using impedance-based mapping.
Impella may disrupt magnet-based mapping near the device; leaves open optimal mitigation strategies for human VT ablation.
BACKGROUND: Hemodynamic instability hinders activation and entrainment mapping during ventricular tachycardia ablation. The Impella 2.5 microaxial flow device (MFD; Abiomed Inc., Danvers, MA, USA) is used to prevent hemodynamic instability during electrophysiologic study. However, electromagnetic interference (EMI) generated by this device can preclude accurate electroanatomic mapping. METHODS: Impella was placed in the left ventricle of 7 canines for circulatory support. Electroanatomic mapping during sinus rhythm, ventricular pacing, and ventricular fibrillation (VF) was performed using magnet- (CARTO3, Biosense Webster Inc., Diamond Bar, CA, USA) and impedance- (EnSite Velocity System/EnSite NavX, St. Jude Medical Inc., St. Paul, MN, USA) based systems. Distance from device to points with severe EMI precluding acquisition was compared to points with mild/no EMI. Two methods were used to reduce EMI: (1) titration of MFD performance, and (2) impedance-only mapping combined with manual annotation of activation. RESULTS: Severe EMI did not occur during impedance-based mapping. Severe EMI was observed using CARTO3 at 9.4% of all points attempted at maximum performance level (P8) of device. Severe EMI occurred at points closer to device (40.1 ± 16.8 mm) versus (55.5 ± 20.0 mm) for mild/no EMI, P < 0.0001. Severe EMI using CARTO3 was resolved by either (1) reduction of performance from P8 to P6 or (2) impedance-only mapping with manual annotation. CONCLUSION: Concurrent use of MFD caused EMI to prevent acquisition of points with magnet-based mapping. Predictors for EMI were distance from device and performance level. Temporary reductions to P6 or impedance-only mapping are 2 methods to resolve EMI.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Vaidya et al. (2014) studied Electromagnetic interference during electroanatomic mapping (n=7). Magnet-based mapping (CARTO3) with concurrent Impella 2.5 vs. Impedance-based mapping (EnSite) was evaluated on Severe electromagnetic interference (EMI) at maximum device performance level. Magnet-based mapping with concurrent Impella 2.5 caused severe electromagnetic interference at 9.4% of points, which occurred closer to the device (40.1 vs 55.5 mm, P<0.0001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: