Radiofrequency Ablation with an Enhanced-Irrigation Flexible-Tip Catheter versus a Standard-Irrigation Rigid-Tip Catheter

JinJiang ablation catheter is no inferior than Johnson ablation catheter in radiofrequency ablation of paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia

BACKGROUND

Paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia (PSVT) is characterized by episodes of rapid tachycardia with sudden onset and sudden termination. PSVT treatment has evolved considerably over the past 30 years. Currently, radiofrequency catheter ablation is the first-line treatment.

HYPOTHESIS

We conducted a randomized controlled trial to compare safety and effectiveness of PSVT ablation between the Jinjiang and Johnson (J&J) catheters in 57 patients in our hospital.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients were randomly assigned to ablation procedures using either the Jinjiang system or the J&J Carto system. Follow-up was performed 3 days, 1, and 6 months after the procedure. Success rate, ablation time, frequency of ablation, and rates of complications and recurrence did not significantly differ between the groups. One Jinjiang group patient (3.6%) experienced arrhythmia recurrence during the 6-month follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

The Jinjiang catheter for radiofrequency ablation of PSVT is as safe and effective as the J&J catheter.

Safe and effective delivery of high-power, short-duration radiofrequency ablation lesions with a flexible-tip ablation catheter

Background

High-power, short-duration (HPSD) radiofrequency ablation (RFA) may reduce ablation time. Concerns that catheter-mounted thermocouples (TCs) can underestimate tissue temperature, resulting in elevated risk of steam pop formation, potentially limit widespread adoption of HPSD ablation.

Objective

The purpose of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of HPSD and low-power, long-duration (LPLD) RFA in the context of pulmonary vein isolation (PVI).

Methods

An open-irrigated ablation catheter with a contact force sensor and a flexible-tip electrode containing a TC at its distal end (TactiFlex^TM Ablation Catheter, Sensor Enabled^TM, Abbott) was used to isolate the left pulmonary veins (PVs) in 12 canines with HPSD RFA (50 W for 10 seconds) and LPLD RFA (30 W for a maximum of 60 seconds). PVI was assessed at 30 minutes and 28 ± 3 days postablation. Computed tomographic scans were performed to assess PV stenosis after RFA. Lesions were evaluated with histopathology.

Results

A total of 545 ablations were delivered: 252 with LPLD (0 steam pops) and 293 with HPSD RFA (2 steam pops) (P = .501). Ablation time required to achieve PVI was >3-fold shorter for HPSD than for LPLD RFA (P = .001). All 24 PVs were isolated 30 minutes after ablation, with 12/12 LPLD-ablated and 11/12 HPSD-ablated PVs still isolated at follow-up. Histopathology revealed transmural ablations for HPSD and LPLD RFA. No major adverse events occurred.

Conclusion

An investigational ablation catheter effectively delivered RFA lesions. Ablation time required to achieve PVI with HPSD with this catheter was >3-fold shorter than with LPLD RFA.

Evaluation of ablation catheter technology: Comparison between thigh preparation model and an in vivo beating heart

BACKGROUND

An in vivo animal thigh model is the standard technique for evaluation of ablation catheter technologies, including efficacy and safety of ablation. However, the biophysics of ablation in a thigh model may not be similar to a beating heart.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare efficacy and safety of ablation between a thigh preparation model and a beating heart.

METHODS

In 7 swine, radiofrequency ablation using a 3.5-mm open irrigated catheter (ThermoCool Smart Touch) was performed sequentially in a thigh muscle and in vivo beating ventricles. Ablation was performed at low (30 W for 40 s) and high (40 W for 60 s) energy settings and at similar contact force. Ablation lesions were scanned in high resolution and measured using electronic calipers.

RESULTS

A total of 152 radiofrequency ablation lesions were measured (86 thigh and 66 heart). At low energy, lesion width was greater in the thigh model (12.19 ± 1.8 mm vs 8.99 ± 2.1 mm; P <.001), whereas lesion depth was similar between the thigh and heart (5.71 ± 0.8 mm vs 5.95 ± 1.3 mm, respectively; P = .18). The planar cross-sectional lesion area was greater in the thigh model (thigh 54.8 ± 10.8 mm² vs heart 43.1 ± 16.1 mm²; P <.001). At the high-energy setting, lesion depth, width, and area were all greater in the thigh model (thigh 91.5 ± 16.8 mm² vs heart 56.0 ± 15.5 mm²; P <.001). The incidence of steam pop and char formation was similar between the models.

CONCLUSION

The thigh preparation model is a reasonable technique for evaluation of ablation catheter technology; however it often results in overestimation of lesion size, especially at higher energy settings.