4.6 Article

Contact force mapping and voltage thresholds during high-frequency stimulation of human cardiac ganglionated plexuses

期刊

EUROPACE
卷 17, 期 4, 页码 552-558

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/europace/euu336

关键词

Atrial fibrillation; Autonomics; Catheter ablation; Contact force

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims The intrinsic cardiac nervous system consists of ganglionated plexuses (GPs) localized epicardially to specific regions of the left atrium (LA). The relation between voltage thresholds and endocardial contact force associated with autonomic effects during stimulation of GPs has not previously been evaluated. Methods and results Sixteen patients with symptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF) underwent mapping of GPs prior to radiofrequency ablation of AF. Pre-acquired computed tomographic images were merged with 3D non-fluoroscopic electroanatomic mapping of the LA. Using high-frequency stimulation (HFS), the voltage thresholds of GPs was obtained while patients received conscious sedation. At each location, the contact force measurement from the catheter was correlated with the voltage applied during HFSat 5, 10, or 15 V to obtain an autonomic effect, usually associated with asystole, or marked bradycardia. There were 192 applications of HFS, resulting in GP identification in all patients (mean 3.4 per patient, range 1-5). During HFS, an autonomic response was significantly more likely to occur at 10 V as compared with 5 V (P < 0.008). There was no significant relation between the measured contact force and the likelihood of obtaining an autonomic response. When performing HFS at 15 V, a sudden overshoot with maximal values of contact force of up to 100 g was also observed. High-frequency stimulation was well tolerated, without associated adverse events. Conclusion An autonomic response during HFS was significantly more likely to occur at 10 Vas compared with 5 V. Although the GPs are epicardial structures, significant contact force was not required for their localization.

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

4.6
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