Premium
In vitro analysis of the origin and characteristics of gaseous microemboli during catheter electroporation ablation
Author(s) -
Es René,
Groen Marijn H. A.,
Stehouwer Marco,
Doevendans Pieter A.,
Wittkampf Fred H. M.,
Neven Kars
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.193
H-Index - 138
eISSN - 1540-8167
pISSN - 1045-3873
DOI - 10.1111/jce.14091
Subject(s) - irreversible electroporation , ablation , millisecond , medicine , volume (thermodynamics) , bubble , electroporation , biomedical engineering , mechanics , cardiology , chemistry , physics , biochemistry , quantum mechanics , astronomy , gene
Recent studies demonstrated that irreversible electroporation (IRE) ablation may be an alternative method for thermal ablation for pulmonary vein isolation. Development of gaseous microemboli during catheter ablation might lead to asymptomatic ischemic events and is therefore an important research topic. Gas formation during arcing with direct current catheter ablation has been studied in the past, however not for nonarcing IRE‐ablation. Objective The aim of the present study was to visualize, quantify, and characterize gas formation during nonarcing millisecond IRE‐pulses using a multielectrode circular catheter. Methods In vitro, gas formation during IRE‐pulses was studied using a high‐speed imaging, direct volume measurements, and a bubble counter. Gas formation was compared between cathodal and anodal IRE‐pulses and between a small and large catheter hoop diameter. Results High‐speed images showed the location and dynamics of gas formation during cathodal and anodal millisecond IRE‐pulses. The direct volume measurements demonstrated a significantly larger volume for cathodal than for anodal IRE‐pulses ( P < .001), and no significant difference between small and large hoop diameters. A strong linear relationship was found between delivered charge and total gas volume ( r = 0.99). Bubble counter measurements showed that cathodal IRE‐pulses produced more and larger gas bubbles than anodal IRE‐pulses. The ratio of total gas volume between cathodal and anodal IRE‐pulses is different as predicted from electrolysis theory. Conclusion In vitro, millisecond anodal IRE‐pulses produce significantly less and smaller gas bubbles than millisecond cathodal IRE‐pulses. In vivo experiments are required to investigate the clinical implication of these observations.