Visual, tactile, and contact force feedback: which one is more important for catheter ablation? Results from an in vitro experimental study.

BACKGROUND: During radiofrequency ablation, effective contact is crucial in determining lesions efficacy. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare operators' ability to assess contact pressure using visual and tactile feedbacks together or alone in an experimental model. METHODS: In a in vitro experimental setup replicating manual catheter manipulation and recording the applied force, evaluators were asked to identify three levels of force (first, ablation, and maximum contact) as the catheter contacted the tissue model using (1) visual feedback only by fluoroscopy, "blinded" to touch; (2) tactile feedback only, blinded to fluoroscopy; and (3) both tactile and visual feedback together. The latter was regarded as reference. The experiment was repeated using a catheter force sensing technology during robotic navigation. RESULTS: During manual navigation, tighter association was shown for the visual method than for the tactile method: median difference with reference: first contact -1 (P = .97) vs -2 (P = .90); ablation contact 2 (P = .1) vs -7 (P = .03); maximum contact 2 (P = .06) vs -28 (P = .02). Bland-Altman plot and Deming regression confirmed for the visual method the good agreement with reference and the absence of bias at any level and showed for the tactile higher values and proportional bias that reached statistical significance at ablation and maximum contact. During robotic navigation, agreement was higher for the tactile than for the visual only method. CONCLUSION: During manual navigation, visual feedback alone is in better agreement with the reference compared to the tactile only approach. During robotic navigation, agreement is looser for the visual only approach. More objective feedback of contact pressure during ablation procedures is desirable.

Robotically assisted ablation produces more rapid and greater signal attenuation than manual ablation.

INTRODUCTION: Robotic remote catheter ablation potentially provides improved catheter-tip stability, which should improve the efficiency of radiofrequency energy delivery. Percentage reduction in electrogram peak-to-peak voltage has been used as a measure of effectiveness of ablation. We tested the hypothesis that improved catheter-tip stability of robotic ablation can diminish signals to a greater degree than manual ablation. METHODS: In vivo NavX maps of 7 pig atria were constructed. Separate lines of ablation were performed robotically and manually, recording pre- and postablation peak-to-peak voltages at 10, 20, 30, and 60 seconds and calculating signal amplitude reduction. Catheter ablation settings were constant (25W, 50 degrees , 17 mL/min, 20-30 g catheter tip pressure). The pigs were sacrificed and ablation lesions correlated with NavX maps. RESULTS: Robotic ablation reduced signal amplitude to a greater degree than manual ablation (49 +/- 2.6% vs 29 +/- 4.5% signal reduction after 1 minute [P = 0.0002]). The mean energy delivered (223 +/- 184 J vs 231 +/- 190 J, P = 0.42), power (19 +/- 3.5 W vs 19 +/- 4 W, P = 0.84), and duration of ablation (15 +/- 9 seconds vs 15 +/- 9 seconds, P = 0.89) was the same for manual and robotic. The mean peak catheter-tip temperature was higher for robotic (45 +/- 5 degrees C vs 42 +/- 3 degrees C [P < 0.0001]). The incidence of >50% signal reduction was greater for robotic (37%) than manual (21%) ablation (P = 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Robotically assisted ablation appears to be more effective than manual ablation at signal amplitude reduction, therefore may be expected to produce improved clinical outcomes.