Cargando…

Safety and feasibility of transcatheter renal sympathetic denervation using different types of catheter and various radiofrequency settings

BACKGROUND: To evaluate in vivo the feasibility and safety of renal sympathetic denervation (RSD) with different catheters and various radiofrequency protocols. METHODS AND RESULTS: Twenty-two pigs were included. First 2 pigs were enrolled in a feasibility protocol using one catheter and power from...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Andrea, Bruno Rustum, Atié, Jacob, Desh, Steffen, Lurz, Phillip, Hindricks, Gerhard
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5441361/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28616523
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcha.2016.03.008
_version_ 1783238250602692608
author Andrea, Bruno Rustum
Atié, Jacob
Desh, Steffen
Lurz, Phillip
Hindricks, Gerhard
author_facet Andrea, Bruno Rustum
Atié, Jacob
Desh, Steffen
Lurz, Phillip
Hindricks, Gerhard
author_sort Andrea, Bruno Rustum
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: To evaluate in vivo the feasibility and safety of renal sympathetic denervation (RSD) with different catheters and various radiofrequency protocols. METHODS AND RESULTS: Twenty-two pigs were included. First 2 pigs were enrolled in a feasibility protocol using one catheter and power from 5 W to 20 W. The next 10 pigs underwent RSD with three different catheters and four different RF-power settings of 5 W, 8 W, 10 W and 12 W in one minute per lesion (Protocol 1). The following 10 (Pigs 13 to 22) underwent RSD with five types of catheters (including the Symplicity® catheter), powers of 8 W and 10 W and two minutes RF-application (Protocol 2). Angiographic data were obtained at baseline, during and after RSD. At last, renal arteries were excised and analyzed macroscopically. The first pig developed severe renal stenoses with lesions of 15 to 20 W correlated with macroscopic alterations. The second feasibility pig did not develop renal stenosis with 5 and 8 W. In Protocol 1 from 60 RF-lesions, we observed 7 stenoses (≥ 30%). Three were severe (one of 80% with 10 W and two of 80% with 12 W). In Protocol 2 from 57 lesions we observed only 1 stenosis of 50% with 8 W with Symplicity® catheter. Severe stenosis was not observed. CONCLUSION: In this study, renal sympathetic denervation showed safety using five types of catheters when applying RF-energy less than 10 W, within main stems of arteries larger than 3.0 mm diameter and a distance between lesions of at least 1 time catheter tip length.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5441361
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-54413612017-06-14 Safety and feasibility of transcatheter renal sympathetic denervation using different types of catheter and various radiofrequency settings Andrea, Bruno Rustum Atié, Jacob Desh, Steffen Lurz, Phillip Hindricks, Gerhard Int J Cardiol Heart Vasc Article BACKGROUND: To evaluate in vivo the feasibility and safety of renal sympathetic denervation (RSD) with different catheters and various radiofrequency protocols. METHODS AND RESULTS: Twenty-two pigs were included. First 2 pigs were enrolled in a feasibility protocol using one catheter and power from 5 W to 20 W. The next 10 pigs underwent RSD with three different catheters and four different RF-power settings of 5 W, 8 W, 10 W and 12 W in one minute per lesion (Protocol 1). The following 10 (Pigs 13 to 22) underwent RSD with five types of catheters (including the Symplicity® catheter), powers of 8 W and 10 W and two minutes RF-application (Protocol 2). Angiographic data were obtained at baseline, during and after RSD. At last, renal arteries were excised and analyzed macroscopically. The first pig developed severe renal stenoses with lesions of 15 to 20 W correlated with macroscopic alterations. The second feasibility pig did not develop renal stenosis with 5 and 8 W. In Protocol 1 from 60 RF-lesions, we observed 7 stenoses (≥ 30%). Three were severe (one of 80% with 10 W and two of 80% with 12 W). In Protocol 2 from 57 lesions we observed only 1 stenosis of 50% with 8 W with Symplicity® catheter. Severe stenosis was not observed. CONCLUSION: In this study, renal sympathetic denervation showed safety using five types of catheters when applying RF-energy less than 10 W, within main stems of arteries larger than 3.0 mm diameter and a distance between lesions of at least 1 time catheter tip length. Elsevier 2016-03-17 /pmc/articles/PMC5441361/ /pubmed/28616523 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcha.2016.03.008 Text en © 2016 Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Andrea, Bruno Rustum
Atié, Jacob
Desh, Steffen
Lurz, Phillip
Hindricks, Gerhard
Safety and feasibility of transcatheter renal sympathetic denervation using different types of catheter and various radiofrequency settings
title Safety and feasibility of transcatheter renal sympathetic denervation using different types of catheter and various radiofrequency settings
title_full Safety and feasibility of transcatheter renal sympathetic denervation using different types of catheter and various radiofrequency settings
title_fullStr Safety and feasibility of transcatheter renal sympathetic denervation using different types of catheter and various radiofrequency settings
title_full_unstemmed Safety and feasibility of transcatheter renal sympathetic denervation using different types of catheter and various radiofrequency settings
title_short Safety and feasibility of transcatheter renal sympathetic denervation using different types of catheter and various radiofrequency settings
title_sort safety and feasibility of transcatheter renal sympathetic denervation using different types of catheter and various radiofrequency settings
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5441361/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28616523
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcha.2016.03.008
work_keys_str_mv AT andreabrunorustum safetyandfeasibilityoftranscatheterrenalsympatheticdenervationusingdifferenttypesofcatheterandvariousradiofrequencysettings
AT atiejacob safetyandfeasibilityoftranscatheterrenalsympatheticdenervationusingdifferenttypesofcatheterandvariousradiofrequencysettings
AT deshsteffen safetyandfeasibilityoftranscatheterrenalsympatheticdenervationusingdifferenttypesofcatheterandvariousradiofrequencysettings
AT lurzphillip safetyandfeasibilityoftranscatheterrenalsympatheticdenervationusingdifferenttypesofcatheterandvariousradiofrequencysettings
AT hindricksgerhard safetyandfeasibilityoftranscatheterrenalsympatheticdenervationusingdifferenttypesofcatheterandvariousradiofrequencysettings