Microwave, Irrigated, Pulsed, or Conventional Radiofrequency Energy Source: Which Energy Source for Which Catheter Ablation?

Authors


Address for reprints: Ali Erdogan, M.D., Medizinische Klinik I, Klinikstr. 36, D-35392 Giessen, Germany. Fax: 49-641-99-42229; e-mail: a.erdogan@web.de

Abstract

ERDOGAN, A., et al.: Microwave, Irrigated, Pulsed, or Conventional Radiofrequency Energy Source: Which Energy Source for Which Catheter Ablation?The aim of the study was to compare the diameter of endomyocardial lesions induced with the delivery of microwave, cooled, or pulsed energy versus conventional RF energy. In vitro tests were performed in fresh endomyocardial preparations of pig hearts in a 10-L bath of NaCl 0.9% solution at 37°C and constant 1.5 L/min flow. Ablation 7 Fr catheters with 4-mm tip electrodes were used, except for the delivery of microwave energy. Energy delivery time was set to 60 s/50 W in all experiments. Cooled energy delivery was performed with a closed irrigation catheter. Pulsed energy delivery was performed using a special controller with a duty-cycle of 5 ms. Microwave energy was delivered with a 2.5-GHz generator and 10-mm antenna. Electrode temperature and impedance were measured simultaneously. After ablation, lesion length, width, and depth were measured with microcalipers, and volume calculated by a formula for ellipsoid bodies. Each energy delivery mode was tested in ten experiments. The deepest lesions were created with cooled energy delivery, and the largest volume by microwave energy delivery. Pulsed RF produced significantly deeper lesions than conventional RF energy delivery. Cooled or pulsed RF energy delivery created deeper transmural lesions than conventional RF. To create linear lesions at anatomically complex sites (isthmus), microwave energy seemed superior by rapidly creating deep and long lesions. (PACE 2003; 26:[Pt. II]:504–506)

Ancillary