4.6 Article

Modeling bipolar phase-shifted multielectrode catheter ablation

Journal

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING
Volume 49, Issue 1, Pages 10-17

Publisher

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/10.972835

Keywords

bipolar ablation; cardiac ablation; catheter ablation; finite-element; phase-shift; radiofrequency ablation

Funding

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [HL56143] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NATIONAL HEART, LUNG, AND BLOOD INSTITUTE [R01HL056143] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Atrial fibrillation (AFIB) is a common clinical problem affecting approximately 0.5-1% of the United States population. Radio-frequency (RF) multielectrode catheter (MEC) ablation has successes in curing AFIB. We utilized finite-element method analysis to determine the myocardial temperature distribution after 30 s, 80 degreesC temperature-controlled unipolar ablation using three 7F 12.5-mm electrodes with 2-mm interelectrode spacing MEC. Numerical results demonstrated that cold spots occurred at the edges of the middle electrode and hot spots at the side electrodes. We introduced the bipolar phase-shifted technique for RF energy delivery of MEC ablation. We determined the optimal phase-shift (phi) between the two sinusoidal voltage sources of a simplified two-dimensional finite-element model. At the optimal phi, we can achieve a temperature distribution that minimizes the difference between temperatures at electrode edges. We also studied the effects of myocardial electric conductivity (nr), thermal conductivity (k), and the electrode spacing on the optimal phi. When we varied or and k from 50 % to 150 %, optimal phi ranged from 29.5 degrees to 23.5 degrees, and in the vicinity of 26.5 degrees, respectively. The optimal phi for 3-mm spacing MEC was 30.5 degrees. We show the design of a simplified bipolar phase-shifted MEC ablation system.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available