Confirming pericardial access by using impedance measurements from a micropuncture needle.
bioimpedance
micropuncture
needle-in-needle
pericardial access
physician confidence
Journal
Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE
ISSN: 1540-8159
Titre abrégé: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7803944
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 2020
06 2020
Historique:
received:
19
11
2019
revised:
03
04
2020
accepted:
19
04
2020
pubmed:
26
4
2020
medline:
10
8
2021
entrez:
26
4
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Pericardial access is complicated by two difficulties: confirming when the needle tip is in the pericardial space, and avoiding complications during access, such as inadvertently puncturing other organs. Conventional imaging tools are inadequate for addressing these difficulties, as they lack soft-tissue markers that could be used as guidance during access. A system that can both confirm access and avoid inadvertent organ injury is needed. A 21G micropuncture needle was modified to include two small electrodes at the needle tip. With continuous bioimpedance monitoring from the electrodes, the needle was used to access the pericardium in porcine models (n = 4). The needle was also visualized in vivo by using an electroanatomical map (n = 2). Bioimpedance data from different tissues were analyzed retrospectively. Bioimpedance data collected from the subcutaneous space (992.8 ± 13.1 Ω), anterior mediastinum (972.2 ± 14.2 Ω), pericardial space (323.2 ± 17.1 Ω), mid-myocardium (349.7 ± 87.6 Ω), right ventricular cavity (235.0 ± 9.7 Ω), lung (1142.0 ± 172.0 Ω), liver (575.0 ± 52.6 Ω), and blood (177.5 ± 1.9 Ω) differed significantly by tissue type (P < .01). Phase data in the frequency domain correlated well with the needle being in the pericardial space. A simple threshold analysis effectively separated lung (threshold = 1120.0 Ω) and blood (threshold = 305.9 Ω) tissues from the other tissue types. Continuous bioimpedance monitoring from a modified micropuncture needle during pericardial access can be used to clearly differentiate tissues. Combined with traditional imaging modalities, this system allows for confirming access to the pericardial space while avoiding inadvertent puncture of other organs, creating a safer and more efficient needle-access procedure.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Pericardial access is complicated by two difficulties: confirming when the needle tip is in the pericardial space, and avoiding complications during access, such as inadvertently puncturing other organs. Conventional imaging tools are inadequate for addressing these difficulties, as they lack soft-tissue markers that could be used as guidance during access. A system that can both confirm access and avoid inadvertent organ injury is needed.
METHODS
A 21G micropuncture needle was modified to include two small electrodes at the needle tip. With continuous bioimpedance monitoring from the electrodes, the needle was used to access the pericardium in porcine models (n = 4). The needle was also visualized in vivo by using an electroanatomical map (n = 2). Bioimpedance data from different tissues were analyzed retrospectively.
RESULTS
Bioimpedance data collected from the subcutaneous space (992.8 ± 13.1 Ω), anterior mediastinum (972.2 ± 14.2 Ω), pericardial space (323.2 ± 17.1 Ω), mid-myocardium (349.7 ± 87.6 Ω), right ventricular cavity (235.0 ± 9.7 Ω), lung (1142.0 ± 172.0 Ω), liver (575.0 ± 52.6 Ω), and blood (177.5 ± 1.9 Ω) differed significantly by tissue type (P < .01). Phase data in the frequency domain correlated well with the needle being in the pericardial space. A simple threshold analysis effectively separated lung (threshold = 1120.0 Ω) and blood (threshold = 305.9 Ω) tissues from the other tissue types.
CONCLUSIONS
Continuous bioimpedance monitoring from a modified micropuncture needle during pericardial access can be used to clearly differentiate tissues. Combined with traditional imaging modalities, this system allows for confirming access to the pericardial space while avoiding inadvertent puncture of other organs, creating a safer and more efficient needle-access procedure.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
593-601Informations de copyright
© 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
Boyle N, Shivkumar K. Epicardial interventions in electrophysiology. Circulation. 2012;126:1752-1769.
Killu AM, Asirvatham SJ. Percutaneous pericardial access for electrophysiological studies in patients with prior cardiac surgery: approach and understanding the risks. Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther. 2019;17:143-150.
Sosa E, Scanavacca M, d'Avila A, Pilleggi F. A new technique to perform epicardial mapping in the electrophysiology laboratory. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 1996;7:531-536.
Kumar S, Bazaz R, Barbhaiya CR, et al. “Needle-in-needle” epicardial access: preliminary observations with a modified technique for facilitating epicardial interventional procedures. Heart Rhythm. 2015;12:1691-1697.
Koruth JS, Aryana A, Dukkipati SR, et al. Unusual complications of percutaneous epicardial access and epicardial mapping and ablation of cardiac arrhythmias. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2011;4:882-888.
Baumgartner RN, Chumlea WC, Roche AF. Bioelectric impedance phase angle and body composition. Am J Clin Nutr. 1988;48:16-23.
Morimoto T, Kimura S, Konishi Y, et al. A study of the electrical bio-impedance of tumors. J Invest Surg. 1993;6:25-32.
Arevalos CA, Nathan J, Razavi M. Use of a functionalized introducer sheath and bioimpedance spectroscopy for real-time detection of vascular access complications. J Med Eng Technol. 2015;39:191-197.
Seiler J, Roberts-Thomson KC, Raymond JM, Vest J, Delacretaz E, Stevenson WG. Steam pops during irrigated radiofrequency ablation: feasibility of impedance monitoring for prevention. Heart Rhythm. 2008;5:1411-1416.
Burkland DA, Ganapathy AV, John M, et al. Near-field impedance accurately distinguishes among pericardial, intracavitary, and anterior mediastinal position. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2017;28:1492-1499.
Skála T, Táborský M. Electromechanical mapping in electrophysiology and beyond. Cor Vasa. 2015;57:e470-e482.
Killu AM, Mulpuru SK, Al-Hijji MA, et al. Outcomes of combined endocardial-epicardial ablation compared with endocardial ablation alone in patients who undergo epicardial access. Am J Cardiol. 2016;118:842-848.
Tung R, Shivkumar K. Epicardial ablation of ventricular tachycardia. Methodist Debakey Cardiovasc J. 2015;11:129-134.
Gunda S, Reddy M, Pillarisetti J, et al. Differences in complication rates between large bore needle and a long micropuncture needle during epicardial access: time to change clinical practice?Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2015;8:890-895.
Lakkireddy D, Afzal MR, Lee RJ, et al. Short and long-term outcomes of percutaneous left atrial appendage suture ligation: results from a US multicenter evaluation. Heart Rhythm. 2016;13:1030-1036.
Di Biase L, Burkhardt JD, Reddy V, et al. Initial international multicenter human experience with a novel epicardial access needle embedded with a real-time pressure/frequency monitoring to facilitate epicardial access: feasibility and safety. Heart Rhythm. 2017;14:981-988.
Bradfield JS, Tung R, Boyle NG, Buch E, Shivkumar K. Our approach to minimize risk of epicardial access: standard techniques with the addition of electroanatomic mapping guidance. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2013;24:723-727.