Two phase radiofrequency energy created significantly larger lesions (1.03 vs 0.51 cm2 at 20W/20s; P<0.001) and utilized less power than single phase radiofrequency energy in isolated bovine hearts.
Does two phase radiofrequency (TPRF) energy create larger lesions compared to single phase radiofrequency (SPRF) energy in isolated bovine hearts?
Two phase radiofrequency energy creates larger, square-shaped lesions compared to single phase radiofrequency energy in an isolated bovine heart model, suggesting potential advantages for catheter ablation.
Absolute Event Rate: 1.03% vs 0.51%
p-value: p=<0.001
UNLABELLED: This report describes a two phase radiofrequency (TPRF) energy source producing two radiofrequency sinusoidal voltages of similar frequency but different phase angles between three points of wire. When delivered through an orthogonal electrode catheter array (OECA) TPRF energy produces a square-shaped lesion of the area covered by the five electrodes (0.8 cm2). The purposes of the study were: to create square-shaped lesions using TPRF energy; to compare the size of lesions created by single phase radiofrequency (SPRF) to that of TPRF energy; and to study the depth of such lesions and to create lesions of desired size by adjacent placement of the OECA using TPRF energy. Ablations were created in nine isolated bovine hearts using three power settings (10, 20, and 40 watts) and three pulse durations (5, 10, and 20 seconds). Pathological examination was performed to document the length, width, depth, and the microscopic changes of ablations. TPRF energy increases the size of lesion (P less than 0.001) and utilizes less power (P less than 0.008) at the same power setting and pulse duration compared to SPRF energy. This is possibly related to earlier rise in impedance with TPRF compared to SPRF ablations. The largest lesion for both SPRF (0.51 +/- 0.08 cm2) and TPRF (1.03 +/- 0.18 cm2) ablations were observed at 20 watts for 20 seconds. By adjacent placement of the OECA and TPRF energy desired size (6 cm2) lesions were created. There was no significant difference between the depth of SPRF versus TPRF ablations at comparable power setting and pulse duration. Pathological examination revealed the shape of lesions were elliptical or cross-shaped for SPRF and square for TPRF ablations. Microscopic examination revealed coagulation necrosis, edema, and few necrotic cardiac muscle strands. CONCLUSIONS: TPRF energy can cause 1.2 cm2 lesions. TPRF compared to SPRF energy causes larger lesions but depth of lesions are not different than SPRF energy at the same power setting and pulse duration. By adjacent placement of OECA and TPRF energy desired size lesion can be created (6 cm2).
Desai et al. (Mon,) reported a other. Two phase radiofrequency (TPRF) energy vs. Single phase radiofrequency (SPRF) energy was evaluated on Lesion size (p=<0.001). Two phase radiofrequency energy created significantly larger lesions (1.03 vs 0.51 cm2 at 20W/20s; P<0.001) and utilized less power than single phase radiofrequency energy in isolated bovine hearts.