Temperature monitoring during RF ablation has been proposed as a means of controlling the creation of the lesion. However, in vivo studies have shown poor correlation between lesion size and catheter tip temperature. Thus, we hypothesized a difference between catheter tip and tissue temperatures during RF catheter ablation, and that this difference may depend on flow passing the ablation site, tip electrode length, and catheter-tissue orientation. In vitro studies were performed using four different ablation catheters (tip electrode length: 2, 4, or 6 mm) with a thermistor or a thermocouple as temperature sensor. Set temperature was 70 degrees C and pulse duration was 30 seconds. Pieces of porcine left ventricle were immersed in a bath of isotonic saline-dextrose solution at 37 degrees C. The ablation catheters were positioned perpendicularly, obliquely, or parallel to the endocardium. A temperature sensor was inserted from the epicardial side and positioned 1 mm beneath the catheter-tissue interface. Experiments were made with a flow of 200 mL/min passing the ablation site or with no flow. The catheter tip and tissue temperatures differed significantly (P < 0.0001) during ablation. This difference increased with time, with flow passing the ablation site, with the length of the tip electrode, and when the catheter was positioned perpendicularly or obliquely to the endocardium as compared to the parallel catheter-tissue orientation (P < 0.05). In conclusion, the tissue temperature may far exceed the catheter tip temperature, and intramyocardial superheating resulting in steam formation and popping may occur despite a relatively low catheter tip temperature.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.