Electrical superior vena cava isolation using a novel pace-and-ablate technique under diaphragmatic electromyography monitoring

Superior vena cava isolation using a pentaspline pulsed-field ablation catheter: feasibility and safety in patients undergoing atrial fibrillation catheter ablation

AIMS

Superior vena cava (SVC) isolation during atrial fibrillation catheter ablation is limited by the risk of collateral damage to the sinus node and/or the phrenic nerve. Due to its tissue-specificity, we hypothesized the feasibility and safety of pulsed-field ablation (PFA)-based SVC isolation.

METHODS AND RESULTS

One hundred and five consecutive patients undergoing PFA-based AF catheter ablation were prospectively included. After pulmonary vein isolation (±posterior wall isolation and electrical cardioversion), SVC isolation was performed using a standardized workflow. Acute SVC isolation was achieved in 105/105 (100%) patients after 6 ± 1 applications. Transient phrenic nerve stunning occurred in 67/105 (64%) patients but without phrenic nerve palsy at the end of the procedure and at hospital discharge. Transient high-degree sinus node dysfunction occurred in 5/105 (4.7%) patients, with no recurrence at the end of the procedure and until discharge. At the 3-month follow-up visit, no complication occurred.

CONCLUSION

SVC isolation using a pentaspline PFA catheter is feasible and safe.

A New Methodology for Intraoperative Monitoring of the Functional Integrity of the Phrenic Nerve During Cardiothoracic Surgery

INTRODUCTION

The phrenic nerve could be easily injured during cardiothoracic surgeries because of its anatomical relationships. The aim of this study is to describe a new, feasible, and reproducible methodology to achieve a continuous intraoperative neuromonitoring of the phrenic nerve.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent open-chest surgery were included. The recording active electrode was placed 5 cm superior to the tip of the xiphoid process, and a hook wire inserted at the motor point of the ipsilateral hemidiaphragm was used as the reference electrode.

RESULTS

We studied 45 patients (92% men, mean age 67 years). Mean height and weight were 167 ± 6.9 cm and 75.6 ± 12.3 kg, respectively. A reproducible compound motor action potential was recorded in 38 (85%) subjects. The mean latency and amplitude values were 9.68 ± 2.40 ms and 1.36 ± 3.83 mV, respectively. No intraoperative events were recorded.

CONCLUSIONS

We reported a new methodology which allows the assessment of phrenic nerve functional integrity during surgical procedures.

Electrophysiological identification of superior vena cava: Novel insight into slow conduction or conduction block

INTRODUCTION

It has not been clarified how to identify the electrophysiological junction between right atrium (RA) and superior vena cava (SVC). The aim of this study was to identify the electrophysiological RA-SVC junction according to slow conduction or conduction bock and to examine the electrophysiological SVC isolation procedure.

METHODS

Seventy-three consecutive atrial fibrillation patients who underwent SVC mapping using a CARTO 3 system were enrolled in this study. Slow conduction or conduction block between the RA and SVC was identified by adjusting the lower threshold criteria of the early meets late function and was described as a white line. The SVC isolation was performed along the white line and with pacing maneuvers to confirm direct SVC capture.

RESULTS

Activation mapping (1296 ± 631 points) was obtained in 66 patients (90%) in 4.6 ± 1.8 min. Slow conduction or conduction block was observed in all patients. The threshold for detecting slow conduction or conduction block was 24 ± 8 ms. The location of the electrophysiological RA-SVC junction was higher in the anterior portion (anterior-septal, anterior, and anterior-lateral) than in the posterior portion (posterior-septal, posterior, and posterior-lateral) (-2.3 ± 6.2 mm vs. 7.1 ± 6.3 mm, p < .001). The SVC isolation at the electrophysiological RA-SVC junction was successful in all patients without any injury to the sinus node function. Asymptomatic phrenic nerve injury was observed in three patients (4.5%).

CONCLUSION

In all patients, the electrophysiological RA-SVC junction determined by slow conduction or conduction block was identified and the electrophysiological SVC isolation was performed successfully and safely.