Advertisement

Contact force-sensing catheters: performance in an ex vivo porcine heart model

  • Eduardo Franco
  • Daniel Rodríguez Muñoz
  • Roberto Matía
  • Antonio Hernández-Madrid
  • Inmaculada Sánchez Pérez
  • José Luis Zamorano
  • Javier Moreno
MULTIMEDIA REPORT

Abstract

Purpose

Contact force (CF) catheters are useful to address proper contact during ablation. However, interactions between the ablation process, or its associated irrigation flow changes, with the CF sensing may translate into unexpected CF value fluctuations. We aimed to test for unintentional CF value variations during radiofrequency applications at a fixed applied force, with two commercially available catheters (TactiCath™ and SmartTouch™), and to evaluate its theoretical clinical significance by correlating CF-derived automatic ablation algorithms (force-time integral and lesion index) and actual lesion size at two standard CF values.

Methods

Four series of 20 perpendicular epicardial ablations (20 W, 60 s, 17 ml/min) were performed on porcine left ventricle submerged in 37 °C saline. Catheters were mechanically fixed at a constant position and evaluated at 10 and 20 g. CF values were digitally analysed before each application changing irrigation rate (2–17–30 ml/min), and during ablation. Finally, lesions were quantified.

Results

Increasing irrigation before ablation led to a slight but significant CF decrease. During ablation, CF showed a reproducible pattern: fast initial decrease, subsequent increase until higher-than-initial values and final plateau phase (CF variation up to 69% at 10 g). CF variability was significantly higher at 10 g and using TactiCath™. There were no major differences in lesion size between catheters at the same initial CF. CF only correlated mildly to lesion measures, and automatic algorithms globally failed to predict lesion size.

Conclusions

CF measured values spontaneously vary during ablation following a predictable pattern (initial decrease, subsequent increase and final plateau). This is especially remarkable applying lower CF.

Keywords

Contact force Radiofrequency ablation Lesion size Porcine heart Experimental model 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Jaime To and Carlos Macian for their assistance during the experiments.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Dr. Eduardo Franco has received consulting fees from Biosense Webster. Dr. Javier Moreno receives consulting fees from Biosense Webster and St Jude Medical. The rest of the authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Supplementary material

10840_2018_435_MOESM1_ESM.mp4 (35.2 mb)
Supplementary Video 1 Typical response of SmartTouch to irrigation rate variations. In this example (not included in the data presented in this paper, and using a different protocol), we increased irrigation rate to 17 ml/min, and then abruptly stopped irrigation. Irrigation increase led to non-significant contact force changes, but irrigation stop led to an important decrease in contact force values. (MP4 36,005 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Yokoyama K, Nakagawa H, Shah DC, Lambert H, Leo G, Aeby N, et al. Novel contact force sensor incorporated in irrigated radiofrequency ablation catheter predicts lesion size and incidence of steam pop and thrombus. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2008;1:354–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Perna F, Heist EK, Danik SB, Barrett CD, Ruskin JN, Mansour M. Assessment of catheter tip contact force resulting in cardiac perforation in swine atria using force sensing technology. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2011;4:218–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Reddy VY, Shah D, Kautzner J, Schmidt B, Saoudi N, Herrera C, et al. The relationship between contact force and clinical outcome during radiofrequency catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation in the TOCCATA study. Heart Rhythm. 2012;9:1789–95.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Neuzil P, Reddy VY, Kautzner J, Petru J, Wichterle D, Shah D, et al. Electrical reconnection after pulmonary vein isolation is contingent on contact force during initial treatment: results from the EFFICAS I study. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2013;6:327–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Natale A, Reddy VY, Monir G, Wilber DJ, Lindsay BD, McElderry HT, et al. Paroxysmal AF catheter ablation with a contact force sensing catheter: results of the prospective, multicenter SMART-AF trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64:647–56.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kimura M, Sasaki S, Owada S, Horiuchi D, Sasaki K, Itoh T, et al. Comparison of lesion formation between contact force-guided and non-guided circumferential pulmonary vein isolation: a prospective, randomized study. Heart Rhythm. 2014;11:984–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nakagawa H, Kautzner J, Natale A, Peichl P, Cihak R, Wichterle D, et al. Locations of high contact force during left atrial mapping in atrial fibrillation patients: electrogram amplitude and impedance are poor predictors of electrode-tissue contact force for ablation of atrial fibrillation. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2013;6:746–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bourier F, Hessling G, Ammar-Busch S, Kottmaier M, Buiatti A, Grebmer C, et al. Electromagnetic contact-force sensing electrophysiological catheters: how accurate is the technology? J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2016;27:347–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bourier F, Gianni C, Dare M, Deisenhofer I, Hessling G, Reents T, et al. Fiberoptic contact-force sensing electrophysiological catheters: how precise is the technology? J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2017;28:109–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Squara F, Latcu DG, Massaad Y, Mahjoub M, Bun SS, Saoudi N. Contact force and force-time integral in atrial radiofrequency ablation predict transmurality of lesions. Europace. 2014;16:660–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kautzner J, Neuzil P, Lambert H, Peichl P, Petru J, Cihak R, et al. EFFICAS II: optimization of catheter contact force improves outcome of pulmonary vein isolation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. Europace. 2015;17:1229–35.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Reddy VY, Dukkipati SR, Neuzil P, Natale A, Albenque JP, Kautzner J, et al. Randomized, controlled trial of the safety and effectiveness of a contact force-sensing irrigated catheter for ablation of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: results of the TactiCath Contact Force Ablation Catheter Study for Atrial Fibrillation (TOCCASTAR) study. Circulation. 2015;132:907–15.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lin T, Ouyang F, Kuck KH, Tilz R. THERMOCOOL® SMARTTOUCH® CATHETER - the evidence so far for contact force technology and the role of VISITAG™ MODULE. Arrhythm Electrophysiol Rev. 2014;3:44–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Moreno J, Quintanilla JG, Molina-Morúa R, García-Torrent MJ, Angulo-Hernández MJ, Curiel-Llamazares C, et al. Morphological and thermodynamic comparison of the lesions created by 4 open-irrigated catheters in 2 experimental models. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2014;25:1391–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Thiagalingam A, D'Avila A, Foley L, Guerrero JL, Lambert H, Leo G, et al. Importance of catheter contact force during irrigated radiofrequency ablation: evaluation in a porcine ex vivo model using a force-sensing catheter. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2010;21:806–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sarkozy A, Shah D, Saenen J, Sieira J, Phlips T, Boris W, et al. Contact force in atrial fibrillation: role of atrial rhythm and ventricular contractions: co-force atrial fibrillation study. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2015;8:1342–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Arnoczky SP, Aksan A. Thermal modification of connective tissues: basic science considerations and clinical implications. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2000;8:305–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Andreu D, Gomez-Pulido F, Calvo M, Carlosena-Remírez A, Bisbal F, Borràs R, et al. Contact force threshold for permanent lesion formation in atrial fibrillation ablation: a cardiac magnetic resonance-based study to detect ablation gaps. Heart Rhythm. 2016;13:37–45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Arrhythmia Unit, Cardiology DepartmentUniversity Hospital Ramón y CajalMadridSpain
  2. 2.Pediatric Cardiology DepartmentUniversity Hospital Ramón y CajalMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations