4.5 Article

Safety and Feasibility of Closed Chest Epicardial Catheter Ablation Using Electroporation

期刊

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/CIRCEP.114.001607

关键词

catheter ablation; coronary arteries; electroporation; pericardium; safety

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background-Permanent coronary artery damage is a hazardous complication of epicardial radiofrequency ablation. Irreversible electroporation (IRE) is a promising nonthermal ablation modality able to create deep myocardial lesions. We investigated the effects of epicardial IRE on luminal coronary artery diameter and lesion depth. Methods and Results-In 5 pigs (60-75 kg), the pericardium was exposed using surgical subxiphoidal epicardial access. A custom deflectable octopolar 12-mm circular catheter with 2-mm ring electrodes was introduced in the pericardium via a steerable sheath. After coronary angiography (CAG), the proximal, mid, and distal left anterior descending, and circumflex coronary arteries were targeted with a single, cathodal 200 J application. CAG was repeated after IRE and after 3 months follow-up. Using quantitative CAG, the minimal luminal diameter at the lesion site was compared with the average of the diameters just proximal and distal to that lesion. Intimal hyperplasia and lesion size were measured histologically. CAG directly postablation demonstrated short-lasting luminal narrowing with normalization in the targeted area, suggestive of coronary spasm. After 3 months, all CAGs were identical to preablation CAGs: mean reference luminal diameter was 2.2 +/- 0.3 mm, mean luminal diameter at the lesion site was 2.1 +/- 0.3 mm (P=0.35). Average intimal hyperplasia in all arteries was 2 +/- 4%. Median lesion depth was 6.4 +/- 2.6 mm. Conclusions-Luminal coronary artery diameter remained unaffected 3 months after epicardial IRE, purposely targeting the coronary arteries. IRE can create deep lesions and is a safe modality for catheter ablation on or near coronary arteries.

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

4.5
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