2020
DOI: 10.1007/s12265-020-10037-0
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Relationship Between Ablation Lesion Size Estimated by Ablation Index and Different Ablation Settings—an Ex Vivo Porcine Heart Study

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
10
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
1
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In the experiments, the 8 levels of contact force within the clinically used range (2,4,6,10,15,20,30, and 40 gf) were applied to the heart tissue surface in line with the typical clinical contact force ranges [14][15][16]. Using this process, the RF catheter ablation test was repeated 6 times each for the 5 contact angles and 8 contact forces to ensure equal distribution of contact force.…”
Section: Ablation Parametersmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In the experiments, the 8 levels of contact force within the clinically used range (2,4,6,10,15,20,30, and 40 gf) were applied to the heart tissue surface in line with the typical clinical contact force ranges [14][15][16]. Using this process, the RF catheter ablation test was repeated 6 times each for the 5 contact angles and 8 contact forces to ensure equal distribution of contact force.…”
Section: Ablation Parametersmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Conventionally, ablation lesion dimensions are measured using a digital vernier caliper and the lesion area and lesion volume are calculated under the assumption that the ablation lesion is a perfectly symmetrical shape [18][19][20]. However, in reality, the ablation lesion morphology is never perfectly symmetrical.…”
Section: Evaluation Of Ablation Lesion Dimensions and Comparison Of Catheter Contact Area With Ablation Lesion Areamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…4 In a recently published multicenter study, AI-guided RFCA of PVCs was demonstrated to be effective and safe with shorter procedure time and higher freedom recurrence of clinical VAs in comparison to a group of propensity-matched controls who underwent non-AI guided RFCA. 5 While AI has been tested as a lesion quality marker under different parameters in in vitro experiments, 6,7 there are no preclinical studies thus far that have directly compared an AI-guided strategy to a conventional time-guided ablation approach under similar experimental conditions or validated the comparative reliability of AI dosing with RFCA using lower osmolality irrigation, which has been demonstrated to deliver deeper and larger ventricular lesions. Given the potential application of AI as a lesion quality marker for RFCA of VAs, we sought to comparatively examine lesion characteristics and safety of AI-guided and time-guided approaches for RFCA in a porcine left ventricular (LV) ex vivo model.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In addition, AI-guided procedures were associated with shorter RF delivery time than matched control procedures 5. While several other in vitro studies have examined the utility of AI targets for predicting lesion size in ventricular animal models F I G U R E 3 Interdependency analysis between ablation index (AI) and ablation time using normal saline (NS) irrigation using different ablation parameters settings,6,7,11 the reliability of AI-guided approach has not been directly assessed versus a non-AI guided approach for RFCA. Given its potential clinical role, we conducted in vitro experiments to comparatively test AI-guided (stratified AI targets between 350 and 750) and non-AI guided protocols (prespecified time durations of RF delivery: 10-90 s) in an ex vivo LV model.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Each diameter was measured three times. The lesion volume was calculated ( 10 ) as follows: volume = [1.33 × π × d × ( a /2) × ( c /2)]/2. All the lesion measurements were collected independently by an investigator who was blinded to the ablation parameters ( Figure 2 ).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%