Advertisement

Intra-procedural evaluation of the cavo-tricuspid isthmus anatomy with different techniques: comparison of angiography and intracardiac echocardiography

  • Kaori Hisazaki
  • Kenichi Kaseno
  • Shinsuke MiyazakiEmail author
  • Naoki Amaya
  • Kanae Hasegawa
  • Yuichiro Shiomi
  • Naoto Tama
  • Hiroyuki Ikeda
  • Yoshitomo Fukuoka
  • Tetsuji Morishita
  • Kentaro Ishida
  • Hiroyasu Uzui
  • Hiroshi Tada
Original Article
  • 13 Downloads

Abstract

Cavo-tricuspid isthmus (CTI) anatomies are highly variable, and specific anatomies lead to a difficult CTI ablation. This study aimed to compare the clinical utility of angiography and intracardiac echocardiography (ICE) in evaluating CTI anatomies, and to investigate the impact of the CTI anatomy on the procedure when the ablation tactic was adjusted to the anatomy. This study included 92 consecutive patients who underwent a CTI ablation. The CTI morphology was assessed with both right atrial angiography and ICE before the ablation, and the ablation tactic was adjusted to the anatomy. The mean CTI length was 34 ± 9 mm. On ICE imaging, 21 (23%) patients had a flat CTI, while 41 (45%) had a concave CTI with a mean depth of 5.6 ± 2.7 mm. The remaining 30 (32%) had a distinct pouch with a mean depth of 6.4 ± 2.3 mm, located at the posterior, middle, and anterior isthmus in 15, 14, and 1 patients, respectively. The Eustachian ridge (ER) was visualized in 46 (50%) patients. On angiography, a pouch and ER were detected in 22 and 15 patients, but not in the remaining 8 and 31, respectively. A complete CTI block line was created in all patients without any complications. The CTI anatomy did not significantly impact any procedural parameters. ICE was superior to angiography in evaluating the detailed CTI anatomy, especially pouches and the ER. An adjustment of the ablation tactic to the anatomy could overcome the procedural difficulties of the CTI ablation in cases with specific anatomies.

Keywords

Cavo-tricuspid isthmus Intracardiac echocardiography Catheter ablation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Mr. John Martin for his help in the preparation of the manuscript.

Funding

None.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

  1. 1.
    Saoudi N, Nair M, Abdelazziz A, Poty H, Daou A, Anselme F, Letac B (1996) Electrocardiographic patterns and results of radiofrequency catheter ablation of clockwise type I atrial flutter. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 7:931–942CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cabrera JA, Sanchez-Quintana D, Ho SY, Medina A, Anderson RH (1998) The architecture of the atrial musculature between the orifice of the inferior caval vein and the tricuspid valve: the anatomy of the isthmus. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 9:1186–1195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Heidbüchel H, Willems R, van Rensburg H, Adams J, Ector H, Van de Werf F (2000) Right atrial angiographic evaluation of the posterior isthmus: relevance for ablation of typical atrial flutter. Circulation 101:2178–2184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Da Costa A, Faure E, Thévenin J, Messier M, Bernard S, Abdel K, Robin C, Romeyer C, Isaaz K (2004) Effect of isthmus anatomy and ablation catheter on radiofrequency catheter ablation of the cavotricuspid isthmus. Circulation 110:1030–1035CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Shah D, Haïssaguerre M, Takahashi A, Jaïs P, Hocini M, Clémenty J (2000) Differential pacing for distinguishing block from persistent conduction through an ablation line. Circulation 102:1517–1522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cabrera JA, Sanchez-Quintana D, Ho SY, Medina A, Wanguemert F, Gross E, Grillo J, Hernandez E, Anderson RH (1999) Angiographic anatomy of the inferior right atrial isthmus in patients with and without history of common atrial flutter. Circulation 99:3017–3023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Morton JB, Sanders P, Davidson NC, Sparks PB, Vohra JK, Kalman JM (2003) Phased-array intracardiac echocardiography for defining cavotricuspid isthmus anatomy during radiofrequency ablation of typical atrial flutter. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 14:591–597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Scaglione M, Caponi D, Di Donna P, Riccardi R, Bocchiardo M, Azzaro G, Leuzzi S, Gaita F (2004) Typical atrial flutter ablation outcome: correlation with isthmus anatomy using intracardiac echo 3D reconstruction. Europace 6:407–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shimizu Y, Yoshitani K, Murotani K, Kujira K, Kurozumi Y, Fukuhara R, Taniguchi R, Toma M, Miyamoto T, Kita Y, Takatsu Y, Sato Y (2018) The deeper the pouch is, the longer the radiofrequency duration and higher the radiofrequency energy needed-Cavotricuspid isthmus ablation using intracardiac echocardiography. J Arrhythm 34:410–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bencsik G, Pap R, Makai A, Klausz G, Chadaide S, Traykov V, Forster T, Sághy L (2012) Randomized trial of intracardiac echocardiography during cavotricuspid isthmus ablation. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 23:996–1000CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan KK, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kaori Hisazaki
    • 1
  • Kenichi Kaseno
    • 1
  • Shinsuke Miyazaki
    • 1
    Email author
  • Naoki Amaya
    • 1
  • Kanae Hasegawa
    • 1
  • Yuichiro Shiomi
    • 1
  • Naoto Tama
    • 1
  • Hiroyuki Ikeda
    • 1
  • Yoshitomo Fukuoka
    • 1
  • Tetsuji Morishita
    • 1
  • Kentaro Ishida
    • 1
  • Hiroyasu Uzui
    • 1
  • Hiroshi Tada
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Faculty of Medical SciencesUniversity of FukuiYoshida-gunJapan

Personalised recommendations