Local abnormal ventricular activity detection in scar-related VT: Microelectrode versus conventional bipolar electrode.
bipolar electrode
catheter ablation
local abnormal ventricular activity
microelectrode
ventricular tachycardia
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:
Jun 2021
Jun 2021
Historique:
revised:
11
04
2021
received:
16
02
2021
accepted:
25
04
2021
pubmed:
2
5
2021
medline:
27
1
2022
entrez:
1
5
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Conventional bipolar electrodes (CBE) may be suboptimal to detect local abnormal ventricular activities (LAVAs). Microelectrodes (ME) may improve the detection of LAVAs. This study sought to elucidate the detectability of LAVAs using ME compared with CBE in patients with scar-related ventricular tachycardia (VT). We included consecutive patients with structural heart disease who underwent radiofrequency catheter ablation for scar-related VT using either of the following catheters equipped with ME: QDOTTM or IntellaTip MIFITM. Detection field of LAVA potentials were classified as three types: Type 1 (both CBE and ME detected LAVA), Type 2 (CBE did not detect LAVA while ME did), and Type 3 (CBE detected LAVA while ME did not). In 16 patients (68 ± 16 years; 14 males), 260 LAVAs electrograms (QDOT = 72; MIFI = 188) were analyzed. Type 1, type 2, and type 3 detections were 70.8% (QDOT, 69.4%; MIFI, 71.3%), 20.0% (QDOT, 23.6%; MIFI, 18.6%) and 9.2% (QDOT, 6.9%; MIFI, 10.1%), respectively. The LAVAs amplitudes detected by ME were higher than those detected by CBE in both catheters (QDOT: ME 0.79 ± 0.50 mV vs. CBE 0.41 ± 0.42 mV, p = .001; MIFI: ME 0.73 ± 0.64 mV vs. CBE 0.38 ± 0.36 mV, p < .001). ME allow to identify 20% of LAVAs missed by CBE. ME showed higher amplitude LAVAs than CBE. However, 9.2% of LAVAs can still be missed by ME.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Conventional bipolar electrodes (CBE) may be suboptimal to detect local abnormal ventricular activities (LAVAs). Microelectrodes (ME) may improve the detection of LAVAs. This study sought to elucidate the detectability of LAVAs using ME compared with CBE in patients with scar-related ventricular tachycardia (VT).
METHODS
METHODS
We included consecutive patients with structural heart disease who underwent radiofrequency catheter ablation for scar-related VT using either of the following catheters equipped with ME: QDOTTM or IntellaTip MIFITM. Detection field of LAVA potentials were classified as three types: Type 1 (both CBE and ME detected LAVA), Type 2 (CBE did not detect LAVA while ME did), and Type 3 (CBE detected LAVA while ME did not).
RESULTS
RESULTS
In 16 patients (68 ± 16 years; 14 males), 260 LAVAs electrograms (QDOT = 72; MIFI = 188) were analyzed. Type 1, type 2, and type 3 detections were 70.8% (QDOT, 69.4%; MIFI, 71.3%), 20.0% (QDOT, 23.6%; MIFI, 18.6%) and 9.2% (QDOT, 6.9%; MIFI, 10.1%), respectively. The LAVAs amplitudes detected by ME were higher than those detected by CBE in both catheters (QDOT: ME 0.79 ± 0.50 mV vs. CBE 0.41 ± 0.42 mV, p = .001; MIFI: ME 0.73 ± 0.64 mV vs. CBE 0.38 ± 0.36 mV, p < .001).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
ME allow to identify 20% of LAVAs missed by CBE. ME showed higher amplitude LAVAs than CBE. However, 9.2% of LAVAs can still be missed by ME.
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1075-1084Informations de copyright
© 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
Santangeli P, Marchlinski FE. Substrate mapping for unstable ventricular tachycardia. Heart Rhythm. 2016;13:569-583.
Jais P, Maury P, Khairy P, et al. Elimination of local abnormal ventricular activities: a new end point for substrate modification in patients with scar-related ventricular tachycardia. Circulation. 2012;125:2184-2196.
Yamashita S, Cochet H, Sacher F, et al. Impact of new technologies and approaches for post-myocardial infarction ventricular tachycardia ablation during long-term follow-up. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2016;9:e003901.
Leshem E, Tschabrunn CM, Jang J, et al. High-resolution mapping of ventricular scar: evaluation of a novel integrated multielectrode mapping and ablation catheter. JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2017;3:220-231.
Avitall B, Horbal P, Vance D, Koblish J, Kalinski A. Maximal electrogram attenuation recorded from mini electrodes embedded on 4.5-mm irrigated and 8-mm nonirrigated catheters signifies lesion maturation. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2015;26:192-202.
Avitall B, Horbal P, Vance D, Koblish J. Determinants of atrial lesion maturation during radio frequency ablation using localized tissue electrograms. J Innovat Cardiac Rhythm Manage. 2014;2014:1574-1585.
Glashan CA, Tofig BJ, Tao Q, et al. Multisize Electrodes for substrate identification in ischemic cardiomyopathy: validation by integration of whole heart histology. JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2019;5:1130-1140.
Reddy VY, Grimaldi M, De Potter T, et al. Pulmonary vein isolation with very high power, short duration, temperature-controlled lesions: the QDOT-FAST trial. JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2019;5:778-786.
Lloyd MS, Hoskins MH, Shah AD, Langberg JJ. Electrogram characteristics of ablated and non-ablated myocardium in humans: a comparison of miniaturized embedded electrodes and conventional ablation electrodes. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2016;27:820-824.
Martin CA, Martin R, Gajendragadkar PR, et al. First clinical use of novel ablation catheter incorporating local impedance data. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2018;29:1197-1206.
Lee A, Walters TE, Alhede C, Vittinghoff E, Sievers R, Gerstenfeld EP. Standard peak-to-peak bipolar voltage amplitude criteria underestimate myocardial scar during substrate mapping with a novel microelectrode catheter. Heart Rhythm. 2020;17:476-484.
Tanaka Y, Genet M, Chuan Lee L, Martin AJ, Sievers R, Gerstenfeld EP. Utility of high-resolution electroanatomic mapping of the left ventricle using a multispline basket catheter in a swine model of chronic myocardial infarction. Heart Rhythm. 2015;12:144-154.
Tschabrunn CM, Roujol S, Dorman NC, Nezafat R, Josephson ME, Anter E. High-resolution mapping of ventricular scar: comparison between single and multielectrode catheters. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2016;9:e003841
Josephson ME, Anter E. Substrate mapping for ventricular tachycardia: assumptions and misconceptions. JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2015;1:341-352.
Nakashima T, Goujeau C, Nakatani Y, Cheniti G, Jaïs P, Sacher F. Near-field signals detected by a standard bipolar electrode without detection of corresponding signals by microelectrode: what is the mechanism?. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2020;31:1851-1853.
Berte B, Zeppenfeld K, Tung R. Impact of micro-, mini- and multi-electrode mapping on ventricular substrate characterisation. Arrhythm Electrophysiol Rev. 2020;9:128-135.