Cargando…
Pulsed Field Ablation Versus Radiofrequency Ablation: Esophageal Injury in a Novel Porcine Model
Pulsed field ablation (PFA) can be myocardium selective, potentially sparing the esophagus during left atrial ablation. In an in vivo porcine esophageal injury model, we compared the effects of newer biphasic PFA with radiofrequency ablation (RFA). METHODS: In 10 animals, under general anesthesia, t...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7069397/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31977250 http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/CIRCEP.119.008303 |
_version_ | 1783505770939154432 |
---|---|
author | Koruth, Jacob S. Kuroki, Kenji Kawamura, Iwanari Brose, Richard Viswanathan, Raju Buck, Eric D. Donskoy, Elina Neuzil, Petr Dukkipati, Srinivas R. Reddy, Vivek Y. |
author_facet | Koruth, Jacob S. Kuroki, Kenji Kawamura, Iwanari Brose, Richard Viswanathan, Raju Buck, Eric D. Donskoy, Elina Neuzil, Petr Dukkipati, Srinivas R. Reddy, Vivek Y. |
author_sort | Koruth, Jacob S. |
collection | PubMed |
description | Pulsed field ablation (PFA) can be myocardium selective, potentially sparing the esophagus during left atrial ablation. In an in vivo porcine esophageal injury model, we compared the effects of newer biphasic PFA with radiofrequency ablation (RFA). METHODS: In 10 animals, under general anesthesia, the lower esophagus was deflected toward the inferior vena cava using an esophageal deviation balloon, and ablation was performed from within the inferior vena cava at areas of esophageal contact. Four discrete esophageal sites were targeted in each animal: 6 animals received 8 PFA applications/site (2 kV, multispline catheter), and 4 animals received 6 clusters of irrigated RFA applications (30 W×30 seconds, 3.5 mm catheter). All animals were survived to 25 days, sacrificed, and the esophagus submitted for pathological examination, including 10 discrete histological sections/esophagus. RESULTS: The animals weight increased by 13.7±6.2% and 6.8±6.3% (P=0.343) in the PFA and RFA cohorts, respectively. No PFA animals (0 of 6, 0%) developed abnormal in-life observations, but 1 of 4 RFA animals (25%) developed fever and dyspnea. On necropsy, no PFA animals (0 of 6, 0%) demonstrated esophageal lesions. In contrast, esophageal injury occurred in all RFA animals (4 of 4, 100%; P=0.005): a mean of 1.5 mucosal lesions/animal (length, −21.8±8.9 mm; width, −4.9±1.4 mm) were observed, including one esophago-pulmonary fistula and deep esophageal ulcers in the other animals. Histological examination demonstrated tissue necrosis surrounded by acute and chronic inflammation and fibrosis. The necrotic RFA lesions involved multiple esophageal tissue layers with evidence of arteriolar medial thickening and fibrosis of periesophageal nerves. Abscess formation and full-thickness esophageal wall disruptions were seen in areas of perforation/fistula. CONCLUSIONS: In this novel porcine model of esophageal injury, biphasic PFA induced no chronic histopathologic esophageal changes, while RFA demonstrated a spectrum of esophageal lesions including fistula and deep esophageal ulcers and abscesses. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7069397 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-70693972020-03-25 Pulsed Field Ablation Versus Radiofrequency Ablation: Esophageal Injury in a Novel Porcine Model Koruth, Jacob S. Kuroki, Kenji Kawamura, Iwanari Brose, Richard Viswanathan, Raju Buck, Eric D. Donskoy, Elina Neuzil, Petr Dukkipati, Srinivas R. Reddy, Vivek Y. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol Original Articles Pulsed field ablation (PFA) can be myocardium selective, potentially sparing the esophagus during left atrial ablation. In an in vivo porcine esophageal injury model, we compared the effects of newer biphasic PFA with radiofrequency ablation (RFA). METHODS: In 10 animals, under general anesthesia, the lower esophagus was deflected toward the inferior vena cava using an esophageal deviation balloon, and ablation was performed from within the inferior vena cava at areas of esophageal contact. Four discrete esophageal sites were targeted in each animal: 6 animals received 8 PFA applications/site (2 kV, multispline catheter), and 4 animals received 6 clusters of irrigated RFA applications (30 W×30 seconds, 3.5 mm catheter). All animals were survived to 25 days, sacrificed, and the esophagus submitted for pathological examination, including 10 discrete histological sections/esophagus. RESULTS: The animals weight increased by 13.7±6.2% and 6.8±6.3% (P=0.343) in the PFA and RFA cohorts, respectively. No PFA animals (0 of 6, 0%) developed abnormal in-life observations, but 1 of 4 RFA animals (25%) developed fever and dyspnea. On necropsy, no PFA animals (0 of 6, 0%) demonstrated esophageal lesions. In contrast, esophageal injury occurred in all RFA animals (4 of 4, 100%; P=0.005): a mean of 1.5 mucosal lesions/animal (length, −21.8±8.9 mm; width, −4.9±1.4 mm) were observed, including one esophago-pulmonary fistula and deep esophageal ulcers in the other animals. Histological examination demonstrated tissue necrosis surrounded by acute and chronic inflammation and fibrosis. The necrotic RFA lesions involved multiple esophageal tissue layers with evidence of arteriolar medial thickening and fibrosis of periesophageal nerves. Abscess formation and full-thickness esophageal wall disruptions were seen in areas of perforation/fistula. CONCLUSIONS: In this novel porcine model of esophageal injury, biphasic PFA induced no chronic histopathologic esophageal changes, while RFA demonstrated a spectrum of esophageal lesions including fistula and deep esophageal ulcers and abscesses. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2020-01-24 /pmc/articles/PMC7069397/ /pubmed/31977250 http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/CIRCEP.119.008303 Text en © 2020 The Authors. Circulation: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology is published on behalf of the American Heart Association, Inc., by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial-NoDerivs (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided that the original work is properly cited, the use is noncommercial, and no modifications or adaptations are made. |
spellingShingle | Original Articles Koruth, Jacob S. Kuroki, Kenji Kawamura, Iwanari Brose, Richard Viswanathan, Raju Buck, Eric D. Donskoy, Elina Neuzil, Petr Dukkipati, Srinivas R. Reddy, Vivek Y. Pulsed Field Ablation Versus Radiofrequency Ablation: Esophageal Injury in a Novel Porcine Model |
title | Pulsed Field Ablation Versus Radiofrequency Ablation: Esophageal Injury in a Novel Porcine Model |
title_full | Pulsed Field Ablation Versus Radiofrequency Ablation: Esophageal Injury in a Novel Porcine Model |
title_fullStr | Pulsed Field Ablation Versus Radiofrequency Ablation: Esophageal Injury in a Novel Porcine Model |
title_full_unstemmed | Pulsed Field Ablation Versus Radiofrequency Ablation: Esophageal Injury in a Novel Porcine Model |
title_short | Pulsed Field Ablation Versus Radiofrequency Ablation: Esophageal Injury in a Novel Porcine Model |
title_sort | pulsed field ablation versus radiofrequency ablation: esophageal injury in a novel porcine model |
topic | Original Articles |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7069397/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31977250 http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/CIRCEP.119.008303 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT koruthjacobs pulsedfieldablationversusradiofrequencyablationesophagealinjuryinanovelporcinemodel AT kurokikenji pulsedfieldablationversusradiofrequencyablationesophagealinjuryinanovelporcinemodel AT kawamuraiwanari pulsedfieldablationversusradiofrequencyablationesophagealinjuryinanovelporcinemodel AT broserichard pulsedfieldablationversusradiofrequencyablationesophagealinjuryinanovelporcinemodel AT viswanathanraju pulsedfieldablationversusradiofrequencyablationesophagealinjuryinanovelporcinemodel AT buckericd pulsedfieldablationversusradiofrequencyablationesophagealinjuryinanovelporcinemodel AT donskoyelina pulsedfieldablationversusradiofrequencyablationesophagealinjuryinanovelporcinemodel AT neuzilpetr pulsedfieldablationversusradiofrequencyablationesophagealinjuryinanovelporcinemodel AT dukkipatisrinivasr pulsedfieldablationversusradiofrequencyablationesophagealinjuryinanovelporcinemodel AT reddyviveky pulsedfieldablationversusradiofrequencyablationesophagealinjuryinanovelporcinemodel |