4.7 Article

Computer modeling of radiofrequency cardiac ablation: 30 years of bioengineering research

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.cmpb.2021.106546

关键词

Bioengineering; Cardiac ablation; Computer modeling; In-silico model; Radiofrequency ablation

资金

  1. Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovacion y Universidades/Agencia Estatal de Investigacion [RTI2018-094357-B-C21, MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article discusses the importance of theoretical, mathematical and computational models for radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA) and reviews the progress in computer modeling research. It also discusses the implementation details of mathematical models, the use of lumped element models, computer model verification and validation, as well as current limitations and future work.
This review begins with a rationale of the importance of theoretical, mathematical and computational models for radiofrequency (RF) catheter ablation (RFCA). We then describe the historical context in which each model was developed, its contribution to the knowledge of the physics of RFCA and its implications for clinical practice. Next, we review the computer modeling studies intended to improve our knowledge of the biophysics of RFCA and those intended to explore new technologies. We describe the most important technical details of the implementation of mathematical models, including governing equations, tissue properties, boundary conditions, etc. We discuss the utility of lumped element models, which despite their simplicity are widely used by clinical researchers to provide a physical explanation of how RF power is absorbed in different tissues. Computer model verification and validation are also discussed in the context of RFCA. The article ends with a section on the current limitations, i.e. aspects not yet included in state-of-the-art RFCA computer modeling and on future work aimed at covering the current gaps. (C) 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据