Premium
Controlled Ventilation Enhances Catheter Stability During Radiofrequency Ablation
Author(s) -
VAZIRMARINO FRANAH,
YOUNG MINGLON,
KOHLI VIKAS,
BARRON MICHAEL,
WOLFF GRACE S.
Publication year - 1999
Publication title -
pacing and clinical electrophysiology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.686
H-Index - 101
eISSN - 1540-8159
pISSN - 0147-8389
DOI - 10.1111/j.1540-8159.1999.tb00304.x
Subject(s) - medicine , ventilation (architecture) , expiration , ablation , cardiology , anesthesia , intracardiac injection , catheter ablation , respiratory system , mechanical engineering , engineering
Variations in the amplitude of the atrial and ventricular depolarization waves of the intracardiac electrogram occur during different phases of respiration. Therefore, we tested whether controlled ventilation would reduce ablation attempts and increase the rate of success in patients undergoing radiofrequency ablation with general anesthesia. Thirty‐eight children were divided into two groups: (1) controlled and (2) noncontrolled or cyclic ventilation. In the controlled ventilation group, the mapping electrogram was recorded during sustained inspiration, sustained expiration, and cyclic ventilation. Ablation was done in the phase of ventilation that had the least variability in atrial and ventricular amplitudes. Seventeen patients in the controlled ventilation group had tracings adequate for review. In eight patients, ablation was done during sustained inspiration with the percentage change of atrial and ventricular amplitudes (15%± 16% and 13%± 16%, respectively) being < that during sustained expiration (38%± 27%, P = 0.04 and 20%± 21 %) or during cyclic ventilation (57%± 27%, P < 0.01 and 54%± 26%, P = 0.003). In nine patients, ablation was done during sustained expiration with the percentage change of atrial and ventricular amplitudes (5%± 5% and 5%± 2%) being less than that during sustained inspiration (21%± 14%, P = 0.01 and 11%± 6%, P = 0.01) or during cyclic ventilation (68%± 23%, P < 0.001 and 48 ± 26%, P = 0.001). We achieved success with each patient in both groups, but the number of ablation attempts were less in the controlled ventilation group 1 (3 ± 2), as compared to the cyclic ventilation group 2 (8 ± 8; P < 0.02). We concluded that controlled ventilation reduced the number of ablation attempts and facilitated the ablation procedure.