Cargando…

Use of microelectrode near‐field signals to determine catheter contact

BACKGROUND: The utility of standard distal bipolar electrograms (sEGMs) for assessing catheter‐tissue contact may be obscured by the presence of far‐field signals. Microelectrode electrograms (mEGMs) may overcome this limitation. METHODS: We compared 5 mEGM characteristics (amplitude, frequency cont...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Levy, Mathew R., Merchant, Faisal M., Langberg, Jonathan J., Delurgio, David B.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5828270/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29721110
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/joa3.12006
_version_ 1783302605597835264
author Levy, Mathew R.
Merchant, Faisal M.
Langberg, Jonathan J.
Delurgio, David B.
author_facet Levy, Mathew R.
Merchant, Faisal M.
Langberg, Jonathan J.
Delurgio, David B.
author_sort Levy, Mathew R.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The utility of standard distal bipolar electrograms (sEGMs) for assessing catheter‐tissue contact may be obscured by the presence of far‐field signals. Microelectrode electrograms (mEGMs) may overcome this limitation. METHODS: We compared 5 mEGM characteristics (amplitude, frequency content, temporal signal variability, presence of injury current, and amplitude differential between bipoles) with the sEGM for determining tissue contact in 20 patients undergoing ablation of typical atrial flutter. Visualization of catheter‐tissue contact by intracardiac echocardiography (ICE) served as the gold standard for assessing contact. Correlation between electrograms and ICE‐verified contact level was reported as percent concordance. RESULTS: Three of 5 mEGM characteristics demonstrated significantly better concordance with ICE‐verified contact level than the sEGM (52% concordance with ICE): mEGM frequency content (59% concordance with ICE, P < .001 for comparison with sEGM); mEGM amplitude (concordance 59%, P < .001); and mEGM presence of injury current (56% concordance, P = .001). Concordance of amplitude differential between mEGM bipoles with ICE (49%) was not significantly different than the sEGM (P = .638) whereas mEGM temporal variability (39%) was significantly worse than the sEGM. Using a median of all 5 mEGM characteristics provided additive information (concordance with ICE 64%) and was significantly better than all of the individual mEGM characteristics except frequency content (P = .976). CONCLUSION: Microelectrode EGMs (in particular frequency content, amplitude, and presence of injury current) can improve real‐time assessment of catheter contact compared to the use of standard bipolar EGMs. Broader use of mEGMs may enhance ablation efficacy.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5828270
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-58282702018-05-02 Use of microelectrode near‐field signals to determine catheter contact Levy, Mathew R. Merchant, Faisal M. Langberg, Jonathan J. Delurgio, David B. J Arrhythm Original Articles BACKGROUND: The utility of standard distal bipolar electrograms (sEGMs) for assessing catheter‐tissue contact may be obscured by the presence of far‐field signals. Microelectrode electrograms (mEGMs) may overcome this limitation. METHODS: We compared 5 mEGM characteristics (amplitude, frequency content, temporal signal variability, presence of injury current, and amplitude differential between bipoles) with the sEGM for determining tissue contact in 20 patients undergoing ablation of typical atrial flutter. Visualization of catheter‐tissue contact by intracardiac echocardiography (ICE) served as the gold standard for assessing contact. Correlation between electrograms and ICE‐verified contact level was reported as percent concordance. RESULTS: Three of 5 mEGM characteristics demonstrated significantly better concordance with ICE‐verified contact level than the sEGM (52% concordance with ICE): mEGM frequency content (59% concordance with ICE, P < .001 for comparison with sEGM); mEGM amplitude (concordance 59%, P < .001); and mEGM presence of injury current (56% concordance, P = .001). Concordance of amplitude differential between mEGM bipoles with ICE (49%) was not significantly different than the sEGM (P = .638) whereas mEGM temporal variability (39%) was significantly worse than the sEGM. Using a median of all 5 mEGM characteristics provided additive information (concordance with ICE 64%) and was significantly better than all of the individual mEGM characteristics except frequency content (P = .976). CONCLUSION: Microelectrode EGMs (in particular frequency content, amplitude, and presence of injury current) can improve real‐time assessment of catheter contact compared to the use of standard bipolar EGMs. Broader use of mEGMs may enhance ablation efficacy. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2017-12-15 /pmc/articles/PMC5828270/ /pubmed/29721110 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/joa3.12006 Text en © 2017 The Authors. Journal of Arrhythmia published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of the Japanese Heart Rhythm Society. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
spellingShingle Original Articles
Levy, Mathew R.
Merchant, Faisal M.
Langberg, Jonathan J.
Delurgio, David B.
Use of microelectrode near‐field signals to determine catheter contact
title Use of microelectrode near‐field signals to determine catheter contact
title_full Use of microelectrode near‐field signals to determine catheter contact
title_fullStr Use of microelectrode near‐field signals to determine catheter contact
title_full_unstemmed Use of microelectrode near‐field signals to determine catheter contact
title_short Use of microelectrode near‐field signals to determine catheter contact
title_sort use of microelectrode near‐field signals to determine catheter contact
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5828270/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29721110
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/joa3.12006
work_keys_str_mv AT levymathewr useofmicroelectrodenearfieldsignalstodeterminecathetercontact
AT merchantfaisalm useofmicroelectrodenearfieldsignalstodeterminecathetercontact
AT langbergjonathanj useofmicroelectrodenearfieldsignalstodeterminecathetercontact
AT delurgiodavidb useofmicroelectrodenearfieldsignalstodeterminecathetercontact