Does the same lesion index mean the same efficacy and safety profile: influence of the differential power, time, and contact force on the lesion size and steam pops under the same lesion index

Background The lesion index (LSI) helps predict the lesion size and is widely used in ablation of various types of arrhythmias. However, the influence of the ablation settings on the lesion formation and incidence of steam pops under the same LSI value remains unclear. Methods Using a contact force...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology 2024-01, Vol.67 (1), p.147-155
Hauptverfasser: Narita, Masataka, Higuchi, Syunta, Kawano, Daisuke, Sasaki, Wataru, Matsumoto, Kazuhisa, Tanaka, Naomichi, Mori, Hitoshi, Tsutsui, Kenta, Ikeda, Yoshifumi, Arai, Takahide, Nakano, Shintaro, Kato, Ritsushi, Matsumoto, Kazuo
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background The lesion index (LSI) helps predict the lesion size and is widely used in ablation of various types of arrhythmias. However, the influence of the ablation settings on the lesion formation and incidence of steam pops under the same LSI value remains unclear. Methods Using a contact force (CF) sensing catheter (TactiCath™) in an ex vivo swine left ventricle model, RF lesions were created with a combination of various power steps (30 W, 40 W, 50 W) and CFs (10 g, 20 g, 30 g, 40 g, 50 g) under the same LSI values (5.2 and 7.0). The correlation between the lesion formation and ablation parameters was evaluated. Results Ninety RF lesions were created under a target LSI value of 5.2, and eighty-four were developed under a target LSI value of 7.0. In the LSI 5.2 group, the resultant lesion size widely varied according to the ablation power, and a multiple regression analysis indicated that the ablation energy delivered was the best predictor of the lesion formation. To create a lesion depth > 4 mm, an ablation energy of 393 J is the best cutoff value, suggesting a possibility that ablation energy may be used as a supplemental marker that better monitors the progress of the lesion formation in an LSI 5.2 ablation. In contrast, such inconsistency was not obvious in the LSI 7.0 group. Compared with 30 W, the 50-W ablation exhibited a higher incidence of steam pops in both the LSI 5.2 and 7.0 groups. Conclusions The LSI-lesion size relationship was not necessarily consistent, especially for an LSI of 5.2. To avoid any unintentional, weak ablation, the ablation energy may be a useful supportive parameter (393 J as a cutoff value for a 4-mm depth) during ablation with an LSI around 5.2. Thanks to a prolonged ablation time, the LSI-lesion size relationship is consistent for an LSI of 7.0. However, it is accompanied by a high incidence of steam pops. Care should be given to the ablation settings even when the same LSI value is used.
ISSN:1572-8595
1383-875X
1572-8595
DOI:10.1007/s10840-023-01583-z