Site localization of painful lesions during radiofrequency ablation of pulmonary veins using circular multi-electrode catheters
Previous data showed that pain sensation was common during pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) using an 8-mm radiofrequency (RF) ablation catheter. Pain was more common in the left pulmonary veins (PVs). We characterized the location of pain during PVI using circular multi-electrode ablation catheters.
Included are all consecutive patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) who underwent PVI using the phased RF PVAC® catheter (Medtronic) or the irrigated nMARQ™ catheter (Biosense Webster) under conscious sedation between July 2011 and March 2015. Site of pain reaction was marked for each patient.
A total of 251 patients (141 PVAC®, 110 nMARQ™) were studied; 214 (85 %) had at least one lesion associated with pain. Gender (r = 0.084, p = 0.186), type of AF (r = 0.048, p = 0.452), age (r = 0.078, p = 0.216), and repeat procedure (r = 0.018, p = 0.78) were not correlated with pain. There was no association between site of pain and catheter type; only 33 % of the painful PVs were also the largest ones (p = 0.5, kappa = 0.03, R = −0.083). One-year freedom from AF was similar for patients with and without painful PVs (p = 0.6). The distribution of pain was as follows: 126 (59 %) left superior PV (LSPV), 28 (13 %) left inferior, 28 (13 %) all PVs, 12 (5.6 %) right superior, 12 (5.6 %) right inferior, 18 (8.4 %) left common, and 2 (0.9 %) right common PV.
PVI using multi-electrode catheters more commonly caused pain sensation in LSPV. There was no influence of catheter type or PV size on pain localization. Our findings, which are similar to those using an 8-mm ablation catheter, imply that location of pain is not catheter dependent but rather a reflection of autonomic physiology.
KeywordsAtrial fibrillation Ablation Circular multi-electrode catheter Pain Pulmonary veins
No financial support was received for this study.
Compliance with ethical standards
The study protocol was approved by our institution review board and was not influenced by Medtronic or Biosense Webster companies.
All patients provided an informed consent prior to the procedure.
- 2.Di Biase, L., Conti, S., Mohanty, P., Bai, R., Sanchez, J., Walton, D., et al. (2011). General anesthesia reduces the prevalence of pulmonary vein reconnection during repeat ablation when compared with conscious sedation: results from a randomized study. Heart Rhythm, 8(3), 368–372.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 6.Defaye, P., Kane, A., Jacon, P., & Mondesert, B. (2010). Cryoballoon for pulmonary vein isolation: is it better tolerated than radiofrequency? Retrospective study comparing the use of analgesia and sedation in both ablation techniques. Archives of Cardiovascular Disease, 103, 388–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.Wieczorek, M., Hoeltgen, R., Bruek, M., Bandorski, D., Akin, E., & Salili, A. R. (2010). Pulmonary vein isolation by duty-cycled bipolar and unipolar antrum ablation using a novel multielectrode ablation catheter system: first clinical results. Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology, 27, 23–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 9.Packer, D. L., Kowal, R. C., Wheelan, K. R., Irwin, J. M., Champagne, J., Guerra, P. G., et al. (2013). Cryoballoon ablation of pulmonary veins for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: first results of the North American Arctic Front (STOP AF) Pivotal Trial. American College of Cardiology, 61(16), 1713–1723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.Eitel, C., Hindricks, G., Sommer, P., Gaspar, T., Kircher, S., Wetzel, U., et al. (2010). Circumferential pulmonary vein isolation and linear left atrial ablation as a single-catheter technique to achieve bidirectional conduction block: the pace-and-ablate approach. Heart Rhythm, 7, 157–164.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar