高功率短时间消融术中柔性导管与非柔性导管微栓塞信号的差异。

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Yoshiaki Mizutani, Satoshi Yanagisawa, Mizuki Ichikawa, Keisuke Nishio, Hiroya Sakai, Daishi Nonokawa, Yuichiro Makino, Hitomi Suzuki, Hitoshi Ichimiya, Yasuhiro Uchida, Junji Watanabe, Masaaki Kanashiro, Tomoya Iwawaki, Shun Kondo, Yuki Sato, Rei Shibata, Yasuya Inden, Toyoaki Murohara
{"title":"高功率短时间消融术中柔性导管与非柔性导管微栓塞信号的差异。","authors":"Yoshiaki Mizutani, Satoshi Yanagisawa, Mizuki Ichikawa, Keisuke Nishio, Hiroya Sakai, Daishi Nonokawa, Yuichiro Makino, Hitomi Suzuki, Hitoshi Ichimiya, Yasuhiro Uchida, Junji Watanabe, Masaaki Kanashiro, Tomoya Iwawaki, Shun Kondo, Yuki Sato, Rei Shibata, Yasuya Inden, Toyoaki Murohara","doi":"10.1111/jce.70074","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>A novel flex-tip ablation catheter has a distal tip with a unique design, especially for optimized irrigation flow against catheter contact. This study aimed to evaluate the microembolic signals (MESs) during high-power short-duration (HPSD) ablation between flex-tip and non-flex-tip catheters.</p><p><strong>Method and results: </strong>We retrospectively evaluated 70 patients (39 and 31 with flex-tip and non-flex-tip catheters, respectively) who underwent first-time HPSD radiofrequency ablation with a 50 W-power setting for atrial fibrillation at two institutions. All patients were clinically assessed for MESs using a novel carotid ultrasound-Doppler system throughout pulmonary vein isolation. The numbers of MESs were compared between the two types of catheters. In an experimental study, porcine heart pieces were ablated using two catheters to observe MESs using the same ultrasound evaluation. In the clinical study, 4913 points (2932 and 1981 points in the flex-tip and non-flex-tip groups, respectively) were analyzed. The numbers of MESs, MESs per point, and MESs per second were significantly lower in the flex-tip group than in the non-flex-tip group (123 ± 171 vs. 332 ± 256, p < 0.001; 1.8 ± 2.7 vs. 5.9 ± 4.3, p < 0.001; and 0.1 ± 0.1 vs. 0.2 ± 0.2, p < 0.001, respectively). After propensity score matching analysis in the clinical study with 19 patients in each group, the number of MESs was significantly lower in the flex-tip group than in the non-flex-tip group (152 ± 228 vs. 378 ± 300, p = 0.013), and the difference was most evident in bubble-type MESs (24 [16-96] vs. 185 [79-421], p = 0.023). In the experimental study with eight attempt ablations in each catheter, the number of MESs was significantly lower in the flex-tip group than in the non-flex-tip group (26 ± 14 vs. 58 ± 17, p = 0.002).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Flex-tip catheter ablation significantly reduced MES detections, particularly in the bubble-type MESs, compared with the non-flex-tip catheter ablation at 50 W. This may indicate safe HPSD ablation with the flex-tip type catheter.</p>","PeriodicalId":15178,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Difference in Microembolic Signals Between Flex-Tip Versus Non-Flex-Tip Type Catheters During High-Power Short-Duration Ablation.\",\"authors\":\"Yoshiaki Mizutani, Satoshi Yanagisawa, Mizuki Ichikawa, Keisuke Nishio, Hiroya Sakai, Daishi Nonokawa, Yuichiro Makino, Hitomi Suzuki, Hitoshi Ichimiya, Yasuhiro Uchida, Junji Watanabe, Masaaki Kanashiro, Tomoya Iwawaki, Shun Kondo, Yuki Sato, Rei Shibata, Yasuya Inden, Toyoaki Murohara\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jce.70074\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>A novel flex-tip ablation catheter has a distal tip with a unique design, especially for optimized irrigation flow against catheter contact. This study aimed to evaluate the microembolic signals (MESs) during high-power short-duration (HPSD) ablation between flex-tip and non-flex-tip catheters.</p><p><strong>Method and results: </strong>We retrospectively evaluated 70 patients (39 and 31 with flex-tip and non-flex-tip catheters, respectively) who underwent first-time HPSD radiofrequency ablation with a 50 W-power setting for atrial fibrillation at two institutions. All patients were clinically assessed for MESs using a novel carotid ultrasound-Doppler system throughout pulmonary vein isolation. The numbers of MESs were compared between the two types of catheters. In an experimental study, porcine heart pieces were ablated using two catheters to observe MESs using the same ultrasound evaluation. In the clinical study, 4913 points (2932 and 1981 points in the flex-tip and non-flex-tip groups, respectively) were analyzed. The numbers of MESs, MESs per point, and MESs per second were significantly lower in the flex-tip group than in the non-flex-tip group (123 ± 171 vs. 332 ± 256, p < 0.001; 1.8 ± 2.7 vs. 5.9 ± 4.3, p < 0.001; and 0.1 ± 0.1 vs. 0.2 ± 0.2, p < 0.001, respectively). After propensity score matching analysis in the clinical study with 19 patients in each group, the number of MESs was significantly lower in the flex-tip group than in the non-flex-tip group (152 ± 228 vs. 378 ± 300, p = 0.013), and the difference was most evident in bubble-type MESs (24 [16-96] vs. 185 [79-421], p = 0.023). In the experimental study with eight attempt ablations in each catheter, the number of MESs was significantly lower in the flex-tip group than in the non-flex-tip group (26 ± 14 vs. 58 ± 17, p = 0.002).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Flex-tip catheter ablation significantly reduced MES detections, particularly in the bubble-type MESs, compared with the non-flex-tip catheter ablation at 50 W. This may indicate safe HPSD ablation with the flex-tip type catheter.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15178,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/jce.70074\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jce.70074","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

介绍:一种新型的弯曲尖端消融导管具有独特设计的远端尖端,特别是针对导管接触优化的冲洗流量。本研究旨在评估高功率短时间(HPSD)消融在弯曲尖端和非弯曲尖端导管之间的微栓塞信号(MESs)。方法和结果:我们回顾性评估了70例患者(分别为39例和31例使用弯曲尖端导管和31例使用非弯曲尖端导管),这些患者在两家机构首次接受了50w功率设置的HPSD射频消融治疗房颤。所有患者在肺静脉隔离期间使用新型颈动脉超声多普勒系统进行临床评估。比较两种导尿管的插管次数。在一项实验研究中,使用两根导管消融猪心脏碎片,使用相同的超声评估来观察MESs。在临床研究中,分析4913个穴位(屈曲尖端组2932个,非屈曲尖端组1981个)。与非弯曲尖端组相比,弯曲尖端组的MESs数量、每点的MESs数量和每秒的MESs数量均显著低于非弯曲尖端组(123±171比332±256,p)。结论:与非弯曲尖端消融相比,在50 W时,弯曲尖端导管消融可显著减少MES的检测,特别是气泡型MESs。这可能表明使用弯尖型导管进行HPSD消融是安全的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Difference in Microembolic Signals Between Flex-Tip Versus Non-Flex-Tip Type Catheters During High-Power Short-Duration Ablation.

Introduction: A novel flex-tip ablation catheter has a distal tip with a unique design, especially for optimized irrigation flow against catheter contact. This study aimed to evaluate the microembolic signals (MESs) during high-power short-duration (HPSD) ablation between flex-tip and non-flex-tip catheters.

Method and results: We retrospectively evaluated 70 patients (39 and 31 with flex-tip and non-flex-tip catheters, respectively) who underwent first-time HPSD radiofrequency ablation with a 50 W-power setting for atrial fibrillation at two institutions. All patients were clinically assessed for MESs using a novel carotid ultrasound-Doppler system throughout pulmonary vein isolation. The numbers of MESs were compared between the two types of catheters. In an experimental study, porcine heart pieces were ablated using two catheters to observe MESs using the same ultrasound evaluation. In the clinical study, 4913 points (2932 and 1981 points in the flex-tip and non-flex-tip groups, respectively) were analyzed. The numbers of MESs, MESs per point, and MESs per second were significantly lower in the flex-tip group than in the non-flex-tip group (123 ± 171 vs. 332 ± 256, p < 0.001; 1.8 ± 2.7 vs. 5.9 ± 4.3, p < 0.001; and 0.1 ± 0.1 vs. 0.2 ± 0.2, p < 0.001, respectively). After propensity score matching analysis in the clinical study with 19 patients in each group, the number of MESs was significantly lower in the flex-tip group than in the non-flex-tip group (152 ± 228 vs. 378 ± 300, p = 0.013), and the difference was most evident in bubble-type MESs (24 [16-96] vs. 185 [79-421], p = 0.023). In the experimental study with eight attempt ablations in each catheter, the number of MESs was significantly lower in the flex-tip group than in the non-flex-tip group (26 ± 14 vs. 58 ± 17, p = 0.002).

Conclusions: Flex-tip catheter ablation significantly reduced MES detections, particularly in the bubble-type MESs, compared with the non-flex-tip catheter ablation at 50 W. This may indicate safe HPSD ablation with the flex-tip type catheter.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
14.80%
发文量
433
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology (JCE) keeps its readership well informed of the latest developments in the study and management of arrhythmic disorders. Edited by Bradley P. Knight, M.D., and a distinguished international editorial board, JCE is the leading journal devoted to the study of the electrophysiology of the heart.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信