Focal arrhythmia ablation with multipolar mapping: Does it still make sense to stay off-grid?

Multipolar mapping (MPM) has primarily been studied in complex arrhythmia substrates or reentrant circuits. Chieng et al. use a case-control design to compare MPM and point-by-point mapping with an ablation catheter for focal atrial and ventricular tachycardias, showing reduced procedure times and earlier electrograms in the MPM group but no difference in clinical outcomes. It is plausible that faster mapping and better delineation of earliest signals may translate to improved clinical outcomes if studied in a randomized trial in a larger population. Future MPM systems will guide the operator toward the focus in real-time and may even triangulate the source in three dimensions, giving an estimate of depth within the myocardium or likely focus in the opposite chamber.

Multipolar mapping with the high-density grid catheter compared with conventional point-by-point mapping to guide catheter ablation for focal arrhythmias.

BACKGROUND: Multipolar catheters provide high-density mapping which may reduce the procedural duration and improve the success of catheter ablation (CA) for focal arrhythmias. The high-density grid (HDG) catheter is a 16 electrode mapping catheter with bipole recordings at orthogonal splines. The aim of this study is to compare the clinical and procedural features from a cohort who underwent CA for focal arrhythmias using multipolar mapping (MPM) with age and case-matched cohort using point-by-point (PbyP) mapping. METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing CA for focal arrhythmias between October 2018 and January 2020 guided by MPM were compared with PbyP mapping with the ablation catheter over a similar period. Demographics, procedural features, and outcomes were compared. RESULTS: A total of 54 patients (27 in MPM vs. 27 in PbyP mapping) underwent CA for 68 focal arrhythmias (26 atrial and 42 ventricular). In the MPM group, the electrogram at the successful site was significantly earlier (39 ± 11 ms) than in the PbyP group (33 ± 7 ms; p = .02). In the MPM group, the mapping time (35 ± 24 vs. 53 ± 31 min in PbyP; p = .03) and procedural duration (126 ± 42 vs. 153 ± 39 min in PbyP; p = .02) were significantly shorter. There was no significant difference in radiofrequency and fluoroscopy times, acute procedural success, and arrhythmia recurrence. CONCLUSION: MPM with the HDG catheter for focal tachycardias identified earlier activation times and was associated with shorter mapping and procedure duration with equivalent success to PbyP mapping.

Impact of Electrode Type on Mapping of Scar-Related VT.

BACKGROUND: Substrate-based VT ablation is mostly based on maps acquired with ablation catheters. We hypothesized that multipolar mapping catheters are more effective for identification of scar and local abnormal ventricular activity (LAVA). METHODS AND RESULTS: Phase1: In a sheep infarction model (2 months postinfarction), substrate mapping and LAVA tagging (CARTO® 3) was performed, using a Navistar (NAV) versus a PentaRay (PR) catheter (Biosense Webster). Phase2: Consecutive VT ablation patients from a single center underwent NAV versus PR mapping. Point pairs were defined as a PR and a NAV point located within a 3D-distance of ≤3 mm. Agreement was defined as both points in a pair being manually tagged as normal or LAVA. Four sheep (4 years, 50 ± 4.8 kg) and 9 patients were included (53 ± 14 years, 8 male, 6 ischemic cardiomyopathy). Mapping density was higher within the scar with PR versus NAV (3.2 vs. 0.7 points/cm2 , P = 0.001) with larger bipolar scar area (68 ± 55 cm2 vs. 58 ± 48 cm2 , P = 0.001). In total, 818 point pairs were analyzed. Using PR, far-field voltages were smaller (PR vs. NAV; bipolar: 1.43 ± 1.84 mV vs. 1.64 ± 2.04 mV, P = 0.001; unipolar; 4.28 ± 3.02 mV vs. 4.59 ± 3.67 mV, P < 0.001). More LAVA were also detected with PR (PR vs. NAV; 126 ± 113 vs. 36 ± 29, P = 0.001). When agreement on LAVA was reached (overall: 72%; both LAVA, 40%; both normal, 82%) higher LAVA voltages were recorded on PR (0.48 ± 0.33 mV vs. 0.31 ± 0.21 mV, P = 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Multipolar mapping catheters with small electrodes provide more accurate and higher density maps, with a higher sensitivity to near-field signals. Agreement between PR and NAV is low.

The Influence of Different Multipolar Mapping Catheter Types on Procedural Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Pulmonary Vein Isolation for Atrial Fibrillation.

(1) Background: During pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) for atrial fibrillation (AF), multipolar mapping catheters (MMC) are often used. We aimed to compare the procedural outcomes of two MMCs, specifically a circular-shaped and a five-spline-shaped MMC. (2) Methods: We enrolled 70 consecutive patients in our prospective, observational trial undergoing PVI procedures for paroxysmal AF. The initial 35 patients underwent PVI procedures with circular-shaped MMC guidance (Lasso Group), and the procedures for the latter 35 cases were performed using five-spline-shaped MMC (PentaRay Group). (3) Results: No significant differences were identified between the two groups in total procedure time (80.2 ± 17.7 min vs. 75.7 ± 14.8 min, p = 0.13), time from femoral vein puncture to the initiation of the mapping (31.2 ± 7 min vs. 28.9 ± 6.8, p = 0.80), mapping time (8 (6; 13) min vs. 9 (6.5; 10.5) min, p = 0.73), duration between the first and last ablation (32 (30; 36) min vs. 33 (26; 40) min, p = 0.52), validation time (3 (2; 4) min vs. 3 (1; 5) min, p = 0.46), first pass success rates (89% vs. 91%, p = 0.71), left atrial dwelling time (46 (37; 53) min vs. 45 (36.5; 53) min, p = 0.56), fluoroscopy data (time: 150 ± 71 s vs. 143 ± 56 s, p = 0.14; dose: 6.7 ± 4 mGy vs. 7.4 ± 4.4 mGy, p = 0.90), total ablation time (1187 (1063; 1534) s vs. 1150.5 (1053; 1393.5) s, p = 0.49), the number of ablations (78 (73; 93) vs. 83 (71.3; 92.8), p = 0.60), and total ablation energy (52,300 (47,265; 66,804) J vs. 49,666 (46,395; 56,502) J, p = 0.35). (4) Conclusions: This study finds comparable procedural outcomes bet-ween circular-shaped and five-spline-shaped MMCs for PVI in paroxysmal AF, supporting their interchangeability in clinical practice for anatomical mapping.

Comparison between Standard and High-Definition Multi-Electrode Mapping Catheter in Ventricular Tachycardia Ablation.

A high-definition mapping catheter has been introduced, allowing for bipolar recording along and across the spline with a rapid assessment of voltage, activation, and directionality of conduction. We aimed to evaluate differences in mapping density, accuracy, time, and consequently RF time between different mapping catheters used for ventricular tachycardia (VT) ablation. We enrolled consecutive patients undergoing VT ablation at our center. Patients were divided into the LiveWire 2-2-2 mm catheter (group A) and the HD Grid SE (group B). Primary endpoints were total RF delivery time, the number of points acquired in sinus rhythm and VT, and the scar area. Fifty-one patients were enrolled, 22 in group A and 29 in group B. More points were acquired in the Grid group in sinus rhythm (SR) and during VT (2060.78 ± 1600.38 vs. 3278.63 ± 3214.45, p = 0.05; 4201.13 ± 5141.61 vs. 10,569.43 ± 13,644.94, p = 0.02, respectively). The scar area was smaller in group B (Bipolar area, cm2 4.52 ± 2.72 vs. 2.89 ± 2.81, p = 0.05. Unipolar area, cm2 7.47 ± 4.55 vs. 5.56 ± 2.79, p = 0.03). Radiofrequency (RF) time was shorter in the Grid group (30.52 ± 13.94 vs. 22.16 ± 11.03, p = 0.014). LPs and LAVAs were eliminated in overall >93% of patients. No differences were found in terms of arrhythmia-free survival at follow-up. In conclusion, the use of a high-definition mapping catheter was associated with significantly shorter mapping time during VT and RF time. Significantly more points were acquired in SR and during VT. During remap, we also observed more LAVAs and LPs requiring further ablation.

The challenge of optimising ablation lesions in catheter ablation of ventricular tachycardia.

Radiofrequency catheter ablation has become an established treatment for ventricular tachycardia. The exponential increase in procedures has provided further insights into mechanisms causing arrhythmias and identification of ablation targets with the development of new mapping strategies. Since the definition of criteria to identify myocardial dense scar, borderzone and normal myocardium, and the description of isolated late potentials, local abnormal ventricular activity and decrementing evoked potential mapping, substrate-guided ablation has progressively become the method of choice to guide procedures. Accordingly, a wide range of ablation strategies have been developed from scar homogenization to scar dechanneling or core isolation using increasingly complex and precise tools such as multipolar or omnipolar mapping catheters. Despite these advances long-term success rates for VT ablation have remained static and lower in nonischemic than ischemic heart disease because of the more patchy distribution of myocardial scar. Ablation aims to deliver an irreversible loss of cellular excitability by myocardial heating to a temperatures exceeding 50°C. Many indicators of ablation efficacy have been developed such as contact force, impedance drop, force-time integral and ablation index, mostly validated in atrial fibrillation ablation. In ventricular procedures there is limited data and ablation lesion parameters have been scarcely investigated. Since VT arrhythmia recurrence can be related to inadequate RF lesion formation, it seems reasonable to establish robust markers of ablation efficacy.