Use of microelectrode near-field signals to determine catheter contact.

• Type of Material: Article
• Authors: Mathew R. Levy, Emory University; Faisal M Merchant, Emory University; Jonathan J Langberg, Emory University; David B. Delurgio, Emory University
• Language: English
• Date: 2018-02-01
• Publisher: Wiley
• Publication Version: Final Published Version
• Copyright Statement: © 2017 The Authors. Journal of Arrhythmia published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of the Japanese Heart Rhythm Society.
• License: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International
• Final Published Version (URL): http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/joa3.12006
• Title of Journal or Parent Work: Journal of Arrhythmia
• ISSN: 1880-4276
• Volume: 34
• Issue: 1
• Start Page: 23
• End Page: 29
• Grant/Funding Information: This work was supported by an investigator‐initiated grant from Boston Scientific Corporation (Natick, MA).
• Keywords: catheter contact; microelectrode electrograms; ablation
• Research Categories: Biology, Physiology; Health Sciences, General

Abstract

Background: The utility of standard distal bipolar electrograms (sEGMs) for assessing catheter-tissue contact may be obscured by the presence of far-field signals. Microelectrode electrograms (mEGMs) may overcome this limitation. Methods: We compared 5 mEGM characteristics (amplitude, frequency content, temporal signal variability, presence of injury current, and amplitude differential between bipoles) with the sEGM for determining tissue contact in 20 patients undergoing ablation of typical atrial flutter. Visualization of catheter-tissue contact by intracardiac echocardiography (ICE) served as the gold standard for assessing contact. Correlation between electrograms and ICE-verified contact level was reported as percent concordance. Results: Three of 5 mEGM characteristics demonstrated significantly better concordance with ICE-verified contact level than the sEGM (52% concordance with ICE): mEGM frequency content (59% concordance with ICE, P < .001 for comparison with sEGM); mEGM amplitude (concordance 59%, P < .001); and mEGM presence of injury current (56% concordance, P = .001). Concordance of amplitude differential between mEGM bipoles with ICE (49%) was not significantly different than the sEGM (P = .638) whereas mEGM temporal variability (39%) was significantly worse than the sEGM. Using a median of all 5 mEGM characteristics provided additive information (concordance with ICE 64%) and was significantly better than all of the individual mEGM characteristics except frequency content (P = .976). Conclusion: Microelectrode EGMs (in particular frequency content, amplitude, and presence of injury current) can improve real-time assessment of catheter contact compared to the use of standard bipolar EGMs. Broader use of mEGMs may enhance ablation efficacy.