Safety and Feasibility of Pulsed Field Ablation in Patients With Mechanical Prosthetic Valves.

IF 8 1区 医学 Q1 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS JACC. Clinical electrophysiology Pub Date : 2024-11-20 DOI:10.1016/j.jacep.2024.09.025
Roberto Scacciavillani, Domenico G Della Rocca, Devi Nair, Michele Magnocavallo, Andrzej Głowniak, Sanghamitra Mohanty, Antonio Sorgente, Roberto Mené, Alexandre Almorad, Giampaolo Vetta, Luigi Pannone, Katarzyna Wojewoda, Lorenzo Marcon, Erwin Stroker, Gezim Bala, Aleksander Konopka, Juan Sieira, Stefano Bianchi, Kirollos Gabrah, Pietro Rossi, Andrea Sarkozy, Serge Boveda, Andrea Natale, Carlo de Asmundis, Gian-Battista Chierchia
{"title":"Safety and Feasibility of Pulsed Field Ablation in Patients With Mechanical Prosthetic Valves.","authors":"Roberto Scacciavillani, Domenico G Della Rocca, Devi Nair, Michele Magnocavallo, Andrzej Głowniak, Sanghamitra Mohanty, Antonio Sorgente, Roberto Mené, Alexandre Almorad, Giampaolo Vetta, Luigi Pannone, Katarzyna Wojewoda, Lorenzo Marcon, Erwin Stroker, Gezim Bala, Aleksander Konopka, Juan Sieira, Stefano Bianchi, Kirollos Gabrah, Pietro Rossi, Andrea Sarkozy, Serge Boveda, Andrea Natale, Carlo de Asmundis, Gian-Battista Chierchia","doi":"10.1016/j.jacep.2024.09.025","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Pulsed field ablation (PFA) is a novel ablation energy source, which leads to selective and irreversible electroporation of cardiomyocytes with no collateral damage to adjacent tissues. The presence of mechanical prosthetic valves may pose some issues related to catheter manipulation and risk of electromagnetic interference.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The purpose of this study was to assess the feasibility of PFA in patients with mechanical prosthetic valves.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The authors enrolled 30 consecutive patients (age 64.7 ± 11.4 years; 43% men) with mitral and/or aortic valve replacement with mechanical substitutes undergoing endocardial AF ablation via a PFA technology at 6 institutions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Time between valve surgery and ablation was 6.6 ± 6.5 years; 14 (46.7%) patients had an aortic mechanical valve, 10 (33.3%) a mitral, and 6 (20.0%) both. The following PFA technologies were used: FARAWAVE in 25 patients, Sphere-9 in 2, PulseSelect in 2, and the CENTAURI System in 1. No periprocedural and 1-month postablation major and minor complications were observed. Postprocedural transthoracic echocardiography did not identify any prosthetic valve dysfunction. One patient showed electromagnetic interference of the PFA catheter adjacent to the mitral prosthesis without clinical implications. No energy delivery to the mitral edge of the isthmus was possible despite multiple attempts to reposition the catheter. Mean procedural time was 77.5 ± 29.9 minutes, whereas mean left atrial dwell and fluoroscopy times were 43.1 ± 21.4 and 14.0 ± 6.4 minutes, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>PFA in patients with mechanical valves appears safe, but careful catheter handling is essential to avoid electromagnetic interference hindering PFA delivery.</p>","PeriodicalId":14573,"journal":{"name":"JACC. Clinical electrophysiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":8.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JACC. Clinical electrophysiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacep.2024.09.025","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Pulsed field ablation (PFA) is a novel ablation energy source, which leads to selective and irreversible electroporation of cardiomyocytes with no collateral damage to adjacent tissues. The presence of mechanical prosthetic valves may pose some issues related to catheter manipulation and risk of electromagnetic interference.

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to assess the feasibility of PFA in patients with mechanical prosthetic valves.

Methods: The authors enrolled 30 consecutive patients (age 64.7 ± 11.4 years; 43% men) with mitral and/or aortic valve replacement with mechanical substitutes undergoing endocardial AF ablation via a PFA technology at 6 institutions.

Results: Time between valve surgery and ablation was 6.6 ± 6.5 years; 14 (46.7%) patients had an aortic mechanical valve, 10 (33.3%) a mitral, and 6 (20.0%) both. The following PFA technologies were used: FARAWAVE in 25 patients, Sphere-9 in 2, PulseSelect in 2, and the CENTAURI System in 1. No periprocedural and 1-month postablation major and minor complications were observed. Postprocedural transthoracic echocardiography did not identify any prosthetic valve dysfunction. One patient showed electromagnetic interference of the PFA catheter adjacent to the mitral prosthesis without clinical implications. No energy delivery to the mitral edge of the isthmus was possible despite multiple attempts to reposition the catheter. Mean procedural time was 77.5 ± 29.9 minutes, whereas mean left atrial dwell and fluoroscopy times were 43.1 ± 21.4 and 14.0 ± 6.4 minutes, respectively.

Conclusions: PFA in patients with mechanical valves appears safe, but careful catheter handling is essential to avoid electromagnetic interference hindering PFA delivery.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
机械人工瓣膜患者脉冲场消融的安全性和可行性
背景:脉冲场消融(PFA)是一种新型消融能量源,可对心肌细胞进行选择性和不可逆的电穿孔,且不会对邻近组织造成附带损伤。机械人工瓣膜的存在可能会带来一些与导管操作和电磁干扰风险相关的问题:本研究旨在评估 PFA 在机械人工瓣膜患者中的可行性:作者在 6 家机构连续招募了 30 名二尖瓣和/或主动脉瓣置换术患者(年龄为 64.7 ± 11.4 岁;43% 为男性),这些患者均使用机械替代物,通过 PFA 技术接受心内膜房颤消融术:瓣膜手术与消融之间的时间间隔为 6.6 ± 6.5 年;14 名患者(46.7%)使用主动脉机械瓣,10 名患者(33.3%)使用二尖瓣,6 名患者(20.0%)同时使用两种机械瓣。使用了以下 PFA 技术:25 例患者使用了 FARAWAVE,2 例使用了 Sphere-9,2 例使用了 PulseSelect,1 例使用了 CENTAURI 系统。术后经胸超声心动图检查未发现任何人工瓣膜功能障碍。一名患者的二尖瓣假体附近出现了 PFA 导管电磁干扰,但未造成临床影响。尽管多次尝试重新定位导管,但仍无法向二尖瓣峡边缘输送能量。平均手术时间为 77.5 ± 29.9 分钟,而平均左心房停留时间和透视时间分别为 43.1 ± 21.4 分钟和 14.0 ± 6.4 分钟:机械瓣膜患者的 PFA 似乎是安全的,但必须小心操作导管,以避免电磁干扰阻碍 PFA 输送。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
JACC. Clinical electrophysiology
JACC. Clinical electrophysiology CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS-
CiteScore
10.30
自引率
5.70%
发文量
250
期刊介绍: JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology is one of a family of specialist journals launched by the renowned Journal of the American College of Cardiology (JACC). It encompasses all aspects of the epidemiology, pathogenesis, diagnosis and treatment of cardiac arrhythmias. Submissions of original research and state-of-the-art reviews from cardiology, cardiovascular surgery, neurology, outcomes research, and related fields are encouraged. Experimental and preclinical work that directly relates to diagnostic or therapeutic interventions are also encouraged. In general, case reports will not be considered for publication.
期刊最新文献
Lead Integrity and Failure Evaluation in Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing (LIFE-LBBAP) Study. Safety and Feasibility of Pulsed Field Ablation in Patients With Mechanical Prosthetic Valves. Epilepsy and Cardiac Arrhythmias: A State-of-the-Art Review. Home Sotalol Initiation for the Management of Atrial and Ventricular Arrhythmias Using Remote Electrocardiographic Monitoring. A Novel Computational Platform for Optimizing Synergistic Drug Combinations for Cardioversion of Atrial Fibrillation.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1