Experimental validation of robot-assisted cardiovascular catheterization: model-based versus model-free control
- 61 Downloads
In cardiac electrophysiology, a long and flexible catheter is delivered to a cardiac chamber for the treatment of arrhythmias. Although several robot-assisted platforms have been commercialized, the disorientation in tele-operation is still not well solved. We propose a validation platform for robot-assisted cardiac EP catheterization, integrating a customized MR Safe robot, a standard clinically used EP catheter, and a human–robot interface. Both model-based and model-free control methods are implemented in the platform for quantitative evaluation and comparison.
The model-based and model-free control methods were validated by subject test (ten participants), in which the subjects have to perform a simulated radiofrequency ablation task using both methods. A virtual endoscopic view of the catheter is also provided to enhance hand-to-eye coordination. Assessment indices for targeting accuracy and efficiency were acquired for the evaluation.
(1) Accuracy: The average distance measured from catheter tip to the closest lesion target during ablation of model-free method was 19.1% shorter than that of model-based control. (2) Efficiency: The model-free control reduced the total missed targets by 35.8% and the maximum continuously missed targets by 46.2%, both indices corresponded to a low p value (\(\le 0.05\)).
The model-free method performed better in terms of both accuracy and efficiency, indicating the model-free control could adapt to soft interaction with environment, as compared with the model-based control that does not consider contacts.
KeywordsCardiac electrophysiology Robotic catheterization Model-based control Model-free control Endoscopic view MR Safe
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. This article does not contain patient data.
- 2.Josephson M (2008) Clinical cardiac electrophysiology. Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
- 4.Wongcharoen W, Tsao HM, Wu MH, Tai CT, Chang SL, Lin YJ, Lo LW, Chen YJ, Sheu MH, Chang CY, Chen SA (2006) Morphologic characteristics of the left atrial appendage, roof, and septum: implications for the ablation of atrial fibrillation. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 17(9):951–956CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 8.Lee KH, Fu KC, Dong Z , Leong MCW, Cheung CL, Lee APW, Luk W , Kwok KW (2018) MR-safe robotic platform for MRI-guided intra-cardiac catheterization. IEEE ASME Trans Mechatron https://doi.org/10.1109/TMECH.2018.2801787
- 9.Kwok KW, Lee KH, Chen Y, Wang W, Hu Y, Chow GCT, Zhang HS, Stevenson WG, Kwong RY, Luk W, Schmidt EJ, Tse Z (2014) Interfacing fast multi-phase cardiac image registration with MRI-based catheter tracking for MRI-guided electrophysiological ablative procedures. Circulation 130:A18568Google Scholar
- 14.Ganji Y, Janabi-Sharifi F (2007) Kinematic characterization of a cardiac ablation catheter. In: 2007 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS), pp 1876–1881Google Scholar
- 15.Liu T, Cavusoglu MC (2014) Three dimensional modeling of an MRI actuated steerable catheter system. In: 2014 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA), pp 4393–4398Google Scholar
- 16.Greigarn T, Cavusoglu MC (2014) Task-space motion planning of MRI-actuated catheters for catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation. In: 2014 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS), pp 3476–3482Google Scholar
- 20.Kern MJ, Sorajja P, Lim MJ (2015) Cardiac catheterization handbook. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 273–286Google Scholar
- 22.Hoyle RH (1999) Statistical strategies for small sample research. Sage, Thousand Oaks, p 33Google Scholar