Effect of dispersive electrode position (anterior vs. posterior) in epicardial radiofrequency ablation of ventricular wall: A computer simulation study
[EN] An epicardial approach is often used in radiofrequency (RF) catheter ablation to ablate ventricular tachycardia when an endocardial approach fails. Our objective was to analyze the effect of the position of the dispersive patch (DP) on lesion size using computer modeling during epicardial appro...
| Autores: | , , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2024 |
| País: | España |
| Institución: | Universitat Politècnica de València (UPV) |
| Repositorio: | RiuNet. Repositorio Institucional de la Universitat Politécnica de Valéncia |
| Idioma: | inglés |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:riunet.upv.es:10251/220662 |
| Acceso en línea: | https://riunet.upv.es/handle/10251/220662 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Computer modeling Dispersive electrode Epicardial ablation In-silico model Radiofrequency ablation Ventricular tachycardia |
| Sumario: | [EN] An epicardial approach is often used in radiofrequency (RF) catheter ablation to ablate ventricular tachycardia when an endocardial approach fails. Our objective was to analyze the effect of the position of the dispersive patch (DP) on lesion size using computer modeling during epicardial approach. We compared the posterior position (patient's back), commonly used in clinical practice, to the anterior position (patient's chest). The model considered ventricular wall thicknesses between 4 and 8¿mm, and electrode insertion depths between .3 and .7¿mm. RF pulses were simulated with 20¿W of power for 30¿s duration. Statistically significant differences (P¿<¿.001) were found between both DP positions in terms of baseline impedance, RF current (at 15¿s) and thermal lesion size. The anterior position involved lower impedance (130.8¿±¿4.7 vs. 146.2¿±¿4.9¿¿) and a higher current (401.5¿±¿5.6 vs. 377.5¿±¿5.1¿mA). The anterior position created lesion sizes larger than the posterior position: 8.9¿±¿0.4 vs. 8.4¿±¿0.4¿mm in maximum width, 8.6¿±¿0.4 vs. 8.1¿±¿0.4¿mm in surface width, and 4.5¿±¿0.4 vs. 4.3¿±¿0.4¿mm in depth. Our results suggest that: (1) the redirection of the RF currents due to repositioning the PD has little impact on lesion size and only affects baseline impedance, and (2) the differences in lesion size are only 0.5¿mm wider and 0.2¿mm deeper for the anterior position, which does not seem to have a clinical impact in the context of VT ablation. |
|---|