Local Impedance and Contact Force Guidance to Predict Successful Cavotricuspid Isthmus Ablation with a Zero-fluoroscopy Approach

Overview

Journal Front Cardiovasc Med

Specialty Cardiology & Vascular Diseases

Date 2024 Jan 19

PMID 38239876

Authors

Jorge Melero-Polo

Mercedes Cabrera-Ramos

Jose Manuel Alfonso-Almazan

Isabel Marin-Garcia

Isabel Montilla-Padilla

Jose Ramon Ruiz-Arroyo

Guillermo Lopez-Rodriguez

Javier Ramos-Maqueda

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Introduction: A new technology capable of monitoring local impedance (LI) and contact force (CF) has recently been developed. At the same time, there is growing concern regarding catheter ablation performed under fluoroscopy guidance, due to its harmful effects for both patients and practitioners. The aim of this study was to assess the safety and effectiveness of zero-fluoroscopy cavotricuspid isthmus (CTI) ablation monitoring LI drop and CF as well as to elucidate if these parameters can predict successful radiofrequency (RF) applications in CTI ablation.

Methods: We conducted a prospective observational study recruiting 50 consecutive patients who underwent CTI ablation. A zero-fluoroscopy approach guided by the combination of LI drop and CF was performed. In each RF application, CF and LI drop were monitored. A 6-month follow-up visit was scheduled to assess recurrences.

Results: A total of 767 first-pass RF applications were evaluated in 50 patients. First-pass effective RF applications were associated with greater LI drops: absolute LI drops (30.05 ± 6.23 Ω vs. 25.01 ± 5.95 Ω), = 0.004) and relative LI drops (-23.3 ± 4.9% vs. -18.3 ± 5.6%, = 0.0005). RF applications with a CF between 5 and 15 grams achieved a higher LI drop compared to those with a CF below 5 grams (29.4 ± 8.76 Ω vs. 24.8 ± 8.18 Ω, < 0.0003). However, there were no significant differences in LI drop between RF applications with a CF between 5 and 15 grams and those with a CF beyond 15 grams (29.4 ± 8.76 Ω vs. 31.2 ± 9.81 Ω, = 0.19). CF by itself, without considering LI drop, did not predict effective RF applications (12.3 ± 7.54 g vs. 11.18 ± 5.18 g, = 0.545). Successful CTI ablation guided by a zero-fluoroscopy approach was achieved in all patients. Only one patient experienced a recurrence during the 6-month follow-up.

Conclusions: LI drop (absolute and relative values) appears to be a good predictor of successful RF applications to achieve CTI conduction block. The optimal CF to achieve a good LI drop is between 5 and 15 g. A zero-fluoroscopy approach guided by LI and CF was feasible, effective, and safe.

References

Sasaki T, Nakamura K, Minami K, Take Y, Nakatani Y, Miki Y . Local impedance measurements during contact force-guided cavotricuspid isthmus ablation for predicting an effective radiofrequency ablation. J Arrhythm. 2022; 38(2):245-252. PMC: 8977576. DOI: 10.1002/joa3.12680. View

Pang N, Gao J, Zhang N, Guo M, Wang R . Cavotricuspid isthmus ablation for atrial flutter guided by contact force related parameters: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2023; 9:1060542. PMC: 9853203. DOI: 10.3389/fcvm.2022.1060542. View

Saraf K, Black N, Garratt C, Muhyaldeen S, Morris G . Local impedance-guided ablation and ultra-high density mapping versus conventional or contact force-guided ablation with mapping for treatment of cavotricuspid isthmus dependent atrial flutter. Indian Pacing Electrophysiol J. 2022; 22(4):188-194. PMC: 9263660. DOI: 10.1016/j.ipej.2022.03.004. View

Giehm-Reese M, Kronborg M, Lukac P, Kristiansen S, Jensen H, Gerdes C . A randomized trial of contact force in atrial flutter ablation. Europace. 2020; 22(6):947-955. DOI: 10.1093/europace/euaa049. View

Gunawardene M, Munkler P, Eickholt C, Akbulak R, Jularic M, Klatt N . A novel assessment of local impedance during catheter ablation: initial experience in humans comparing local and generator measurements. Europace. 2019; 21(Supplement_1):i34-i42. DOI: 10.1093/europace/euy273. View

Damilakis J, Theocharopoulos N, Perisinakis K, Manios E, Dimitriou P, Vardas P . Conceptus radiation dose and risk from cardiac catheter ablation procedures. Circulation. 2001; 104(8):893-7. DOI: 10.1161/hc5790.094909. View

Debreceni D, Janosi K, Vamos M, Komocsi A, Simor T, Kupo P . Zero and Minimal Fluoroscopic Approaches During Ablation of Supraventricular Tachycardias: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2022; 9:856145. PMC: 9037593. DOI: 10.3389/fcvm.2022.856145. View

Yang L, Sun G, Chen X, Chen G, Yang S, Guo P . Meta-Analysis of Zero or Near-Zero Fluoroscopy Use During Ablation of Cardiac Arrhythmias. Am J Cardiol. 2016; 118(10):1511-1518. DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2016.08.014. View

Gould P, Booth C, Dauber K, Ng K, Claughton A, Kaye G . Characteristics of Cavotricuspid Isthmus Ablation for Atrial Flutter Guided by Novel Parameters Using a Contact Force Catheter. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2016; 27(12):1429-1436. DOI: 10.1111/jce.13087. View

10.

Alvarez M, Tercedor L, Herrera N, Munoz L, Galdeano R, Valverde F . Cavotricuspid isthmus catheter ablation without the use of fluoroscopy as a first-line treatment. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2010; 22(6):656-62. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-8167.2010.01962.x. View

11.

Turcsan M, Janosi K, Debreceni D, Toth D, Bocz B, Simor T . Intracardiac Echocardiography Guidance Improves Procedural Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Cavotricuspidal Isthmus Ablation for Typical Atrial Flutter. J Clin Med. 2023; 12(19). PMC: 10573340. DOI: 10.3390/jcm12196277. View

12.

Goldstein J . Orthopedic afflictions in the interventional laboratory: tales from the working wounded. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015; 65(8):827-829. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2014.12.020. View

13.

Hillock R, Melton I, Crozier I . Radiofrequency ablation for common atrial flutter using an 8-mm tip catheter and up to 150 W. Europace. 2005; 7(5):409-12. DOI: 10.1016/j.eupc.2005.03.002. View

14.

Debreceni D, Janosi K, Turcsan M, Toth D, Bocz B, Simor T . Feasibility and safety of cavotricuspid isthmus ablation using exclusive intracardiac echocardiography guidance: a proof-of-concept, observational trial. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2023; 10:1244137. PMC: 10601457. DOI: 10.3389/fcvm.2023.1244137. View

15.

Begg G, ONeill J, Sohaib A, McLean A, Pepper C, Graham L . Multicentre randomised trial comparing contact force with electrical coupling index in atrial flutter ablation (VERISMART trial). PLoS One. 2019; 14(4):e0212903. PMC: 6447159. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0212903. View

16.

Marchandise S, Scavee C, Barbraud C, De Meester de Ravenstein C, Balola Bagalwa M, Goesaert C . Interest of waiting time for spontaneous early reconnection after cavotricuspid isthmus ablation: A monocentric randomized trial. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2017; 40(12):1440-1445. DOI: 10.1111/pace.13207. View

17.

Venier S, Andrade J, Khairy P, Mondesert B, Dyrda K, Rivard L . Contact-force-guided vs. contact-force-blinded catheter ablation of typical atrial flutter: a prospective study. Europace. 2016; 19(6):1043-1048. DOI: 10.1093/europace/euw137. View

18.

Schwartzman D, Callans D, Gottlieb C, Dillon S, Movsowitz C, Marchlinski F . Conduction block in the inferior vena caval-tricuspid valve isthmus: association with outcome of radiofrequency ablation of type I atrial flutter. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1996; 28(6):1519-31. DOI: 10.1016/s0735-1097(96)00345-2. View

19.

Picano E, Vano E, Rehani M, Cuocolo A, Mont L, Bodi V . The appropriate and justified use of medical radiation in cardiovascular imaging: a position document of the ESC Associations of Cardiovascular Imaging, Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions and Electrophysiology. Eur Heart J. 2014; 35(10):665-72. DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/eht394. View

20.

Nogami A, Kurita T, Abe H, Ando K, Ishikawa T, Imai K . JCS/JHRS 2019 guideline on non-pharmacotherapy of cardiac arrhythmias. J Arrhythm. 2021; 37(4):709-870. PMC: 8339126. DOI: 10.1002/joa3.12491. View