4.2 Article

Characterization of edema after cryo and radiofrequency ablations based on serial magnetic resonance imaging

Journal

JOURNAL OF CARDIOVASCULAR ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY
Volume 30, Issue 2, Pages 255-262

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jce.13785

Keywords

catheter ablation; cryoablation; late gadolinium enhancement; magnetic resonance imaging; radiofrequency

Funding

  1. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute [K23HL115084]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

IntroductionRadiofrequency (RF) and cryoablation are routinely used to treat arrhythmias, but the extent and time course of edema associated with the two different modalities is unknown. Our goal was to follow the lesion maturation and edema formation after RF and cryoablation using serial magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Methods and ResultsVentricular ablation was performed in a canine model (n=11) using a cryo or an irrigated RF catheter. T2-weighted (T2w) edema imaging and late gadolinium enhancement (LGE)-MRI were done immediately (0day: acute), 1 to 2 weeks (subacute), and 8 to 12 weeks (chronic) after ablation. After the final MRI, excised hearts underwent pathological evaluation. As a result, 45 ventricular lesions (cryo group: 20; RF group: 25) were evaluated. Acute LGE volume was not significantly different but acute edema volume in cryo group was significantly smaller (1225.0263.5 vs 1855.2 +/- 520.5mm(3); P=0.01). One week after ablation, edema still existed in both group but was similar in size. Two weeks after ablation there was no edema in either of the groups. In the chronic phase, the lesion volume for cryo and RF in LGE-MRI (296.7 +/- 156.4 vs 281.6 +/- 140.8mm(3); P=0.73); and pathology (243.3 +/- 125.9 vs 214.5 +/- 148.6mm(3); P=0.49), as well as depth, was comparable. ConclusionsWhen comparing cryo and RF lesions of similar chronic size, acute edema is larger for RF lesions. Edema resolves in both cryo and RF lesions in 1 to 2 weeks.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available