Premium
Effects of Ventilation and Catheter Position on Catheter Movement on the Tricuspid Annulus during Ablation in Children
Author(s) -
CERESNAK SCOTT R.,
KAHANA MADELYN,
ZUCKER HOWARD A.,
MANN GLENN,
NAPPO LYNN,
PASS ROBERT H.
Publication year - 2014
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/pace.12393
Subject(s) - medicine , catheter ablation , supraventricular tachycardia , catheter , ablation , tachycardia , ventilation (architecture) , anesthesia , mechanical ventilation , cardiology , surgery , mechanical engineering , engineering
There are little data on the effect of catheter position and mechanical ventilation on ablation catheter stability during electrophysiology study in children. We sought to determine the magnitude of catheter movement with mechanical ventilation, the effect of ventilation maneuvers on catheter movement, and to compare the degree of movement observed between the right lateral (RL) and right posteroseptal (RPS) regions. Methods From June 2012 to June 2013, patients ≤21 years of age undergoing ablation for supraventricular tachycardia with CARTO® 3 (Biosense Webster, Diamond Bar, CA, USA) were included. During mapping the ablation catheter was placed in the RPS and RL regions and the magnitude of catheter movement (mm) was measured using CARTO® 3. Measurements were made during routine ventilation and with a maximal inspiration maneuver between end‐expiration (ENDEX) and peak‐inspiration (PEAKINS). Results Twenty‐one patients were included: 12 males (57%), age 13 ± 3 years, weight 55 ± 14 kg. Indications for ablation were: 10 Wolff‐Parkinson‐White, seven atrioventricular node re‐entry tachycardia, four concealed accessory pathway. Mechanical ventilation was used in all cases. The magnitude of catheter movement was 3.6 ± 1.7 mm with routine ventilation and 6.2 ± 4.1 mm between ENDEX and PEAKINS (P ≤ 0.01). Catheter movement was greater in the RL compared to the RPS region with routine ventilation (RL 4.3 ± 1.6 vs RPS 3.0 ± 1.5; P < 0.01) and between ENDEX and PEAKINS (RL 8.3 ± 4.7 vs RPS 4.0 ± 1.7; P < 0.01). Conclusions Ventilation and catheter position both have significant impact on the degree of catheter movement during ablation. Movement was greatest in the RL position. This may partially explain the lower success rates of ablation in the RL region.