Pulsed field ablation in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices: an ex vivo assessment of safety.
Atrial fibrillation ablation
Electromagnetic interference
Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator
Pacemaker
Pulsed field ablation
Journal
Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing
ISSN: 1572-8595
Titre abrégé: J Interv Card Electrophysiol
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 9708966
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
22 May 2024
22 May 2024
Historique:
received:
04
10
2023
accepted:
21
01
2024
medline:
22
5
2024
pubmed:
22
5
2024
entrez:
22
5
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Pulse field ablation (PFA) is a novel catheter ablation technology with potential safety benefits due to its tissue selectivity. It has the potential to directly damage or interact with the functionality of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) in the form of electromagnetic interference (EMI). The aim of our study was to assess the impact of PFA on CIEDs. PFA lesions (45 per CIED) were applied from the Farapulse system to CIEDs (< 5 cm from the lead tip and < 15 cm from the generator). All devices were checked before and after PFA application for proper sensing and pacing functionality as well as for integrity of shock circuits in ICDs using a heart simulator. Moreover, devices were then interrogated for any spontaneous reprogramming, mode switching or other EMI effects. In total, 44 CIEDs were tested (16 pacemaker, 21 ICDs, 7 CRT-P/D) with 1980 PFA applications. There was no change in device settings, functionality and electrical parameters, and there was no macroscopic damage to the devices. The risk of damage to the electric components or leads on a patient-based analysis is 0/44 (95% CI 0-8%) and on a PFA pulse-based analysis is 0/1980 (95% CI 0-0.2%). Clinically relevant EMI appeared with oversensing and pacing inhibition but not tachycardia detection. Bipolar PFA appears safe and does not result in damage to CIEDs or leads. Clinically relevant EMI does occur, but appropriate peri-procedural programming may mitigate this. In vivo studies are needed to confirm our findings.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Pulse field ablation (PFA) is a novel catheter ablation technology with potential safety benefits due to its tissue selectivity. It has the potential to directly damage or interact with the functionality of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) in the form of electromagnetic interference (EMI). The aim of our study was to assess the impact of PFA on CIEDs.
METHODS
METHODS
PFA lesions (45 per CIED) were applied from the Farapulse system to CIEDs (< 5 cm from the lead tip and < 15 cm from the generator). All devices were checked before and after PFA application for proper sensing and pacing functionality as well as for integrity of shock circuits in ICDs using a heart simulator. Moreover, devices were then interrogated for any spontaneous reprogramming, mode switching or other EMI effects.
RESULTS
RESULTS
In total, 44 CIEDs were tested (16 pacemaker, 21 ICDs, 7 CRT-P/D) with 1980 PFA applications. There was no change in device settings, functionality and electrical parameters, and there was no macroscopic damage to the devices. The risk of damage to the electric components or leads on a patient-based analysis is 0/44 (95% CI 0-8%) and on a PFA pulse-based analysis is 0/1980 (95% CI 0-0.2%). Clinically relevant EMI appeared with oversensing and pacing inhibition but not tachycardia detection.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Bipolar PFA appears safe and does not result in damage to CIEDs or leads. Clinically relevant EMI does occur, but appropriate peri-procedural programming may mitigate this. In vivo studies are needed to confirm our findings.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38775921
doi: 10.1007/s10840-024-01758-2
pii: 10.1007/s10840-024-01758-2
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Hindricks G, Potpara T, Dagres N, Arbelo E, Bax JJ, Blomström-Lundqvist C, et al. 2020 ESC guidelines for the diagnosis and management of atrial fibrillation developed in collaboration with the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS). Eur Heart J. 2021;42:373–498. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehaa612 .
doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehaa612
pubmed: 32860505
Tohoku S, Chen S, Last J, Bordignon S, Bologna F, Trolese L, et al. Phrenic nerve injury in atrial fibrillation ablation using balloon catheters: incidence, characteristics, and clinical recovery course. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2020;31:1932–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/jce.14567 .
doi: 10.1111/jce.14567
pubmed: 32419183
Packer DL, Mark DB, Robb RA, Monahan KH, Bahnson TD, Poole JE, et al. Effect of catheter ablation vs antiarrhythmic drug therapy on mortality, stroke, bleeding, and cardiac arrest among patients with atrial fibrillation. JAMA. 2019;321:1261. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2019.0693 .
doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.0693
pubmed: 30874766
pmcid: 6450284
Sugrue A, Maor E, Del-Carpio Munoz F, Killu AM, Asirvatham SJ. Cardiac ablation with pulsed electric fields: principles and biophysics. Europace. 2022;24:1213–22. https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euac033 .
doi: 10.1093/europace/euac033
pubmed: 35426908
Reddy VY, Koruth J, Jais P, Petru J, Timko F, Skalsky I, et al. Ablation of atrial fibrillation with pulsed electric fields. JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2018;4:987–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacep.2018.04.005 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jacep.2018.04.005
pubmed: 30139499
Reddy VY, Neuzil P, Koruth JS, Petru J, Funosako M, Cochet H, et al. Pulsed field ablation for pulmonary vein isolation in atrial fibrillation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;74:315–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2019.04.021 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.04.021
pubmed: 31085321
Ekanem E, Reddy VY, Schmidt B, Reichlin T, Neven K, Metzner A, et al. Multi-national survey on the methods, efficacy, and safety on the post-approval clinical use of pulsed field ablation (MANIFEST-PF). EP Eur. 2022;24:1256–66. https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euac050 .
doi: 10.1093/europace/euac050
Cochet H, Nakatani Y, Sridi-Cheniti S, Cheniti G, Ramirez FD, Nakashima T, et al. Pulsed field ablation selectively spares the oesophagus during pulmonary vein isolation for atrial fibrillation. EP Eur. 2021;23:1391–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euab090 .
doi: 10.1093/europace/euab090
van Driel VJHM, Neven K, van Wessel H, Vink A, Doevendans PAFM, Wittkampf FHM. Low vulnerability of the right phrenic nerve to electroporation ablation. Hear Rhythm. 2015;12:1838–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm.2015.05.012 .
doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2015.05.012
Reddy VY, Dukkipati SR, Neuzil P, Anic A, Petru J, Funasako M, et al. Pulsed field ablation of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: 1-year outcomes of IMPULSE, PEFCAT, and PEFCAT II. JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2021;7:614–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacep.2021.02.014 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jacep.2021.02.014
pubmed: 33933412
Jarm T, Krmac T, Magjarevic R, Kos B, Cindric H, Miklavcic D. Investigation of safety for electrochemotherapy and irreversible electroporation ablation therapies in patients with cardiac pacemakers. Biomed Eng Online. 2020;19:85. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12938-020-00827-7 .
doi: 10.1186/s12938-020-00827-7
pubmed: 33198769
pmcid: 7667796
Chen S, Chun JKR, Bordignon S, Tohoku S, Urbanek L, Schaack D, et al. Pulsed field ablation-based pulmonary vein isolation in atrial fibrillation patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices: practical approach and device interrogation (PFA in CIEDs). J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10840-022-01445-0 .
doi: 10.1007/s10840-022-01445-0
pubmed: 36481833
pmcid: 10570236
Chen S, Schmidt B, Bordignon S, Tohoku S, Urbanek L, Chun JKR. Pulsed field ablation as first-line treatment to reduce atrial fibrillation burden documented by pacemaker. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1111/pace.14629 .
doi: 10.1111/pace.14629
pubmed: 36424836
pmcid: 9115450
Stühlinger M, Burri H, Vernooy K, Garcia R, Lenarczyk R, Sultan A, et al. EHRA consensus on prevention and management of interference due to medical procedures in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices. EP Eur. 2022;24:1512–37. https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euac040 .
doi: 10.1093/europace/euac040