Visual, tactile, and contact force feedback

Which one is more important for catheter ablation? Results from an in vitro experimental study

Luigi Di Biase, Alessandro Paoletti Perini, Prasant Mohanty, Alex S. Goldenberg, Gino Grifoni, Pasquale Santangeli, Francesco Santoro, Javier E. Sanchez, Rodney Horton, G. Joseph Gallinghouse, Sergio Conti, Sanghamitra Mohanty, Shane Bailey, Chintan Trivedi, Aditi Garg, Aaron P. Grogan, Dan T. Wallace, Luigi Padeletti, Vivek Reddy, Pierre Jais & 2 others Michelle Haïssaguerre, Andrea Natale

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

9 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)506-513
Number of pages8
JournalHeart Rhythm
Volume11
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 2014

Fingerprint

Catheter Ablation
Touch
Sensory Feedback
Robotics
Catheters
Fluoroscopy
Pressure
Aptitude
In Vitro Techniques
Theoretical Models
Technology

Keywords

  • Ablation
  • Atrial fibrillation
  • Complications
  • Contact force
  • Fluoroscopy
  • Impedance

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
  • Physiology (medical)

Cite this

Visual, tactile, and contact force feedback : Which one is more important for catheter ablation? Results from an in vitro experimental study. / Di Biase, Luigi; Paoletti Perini, Alessandro; Mohanty, Prasant; Goldenberg, Alex S.; Grifoni, Gino; Santangeli, Pasquale; Santoro, Francesco; Sanchez, Javier E.; Horton, Rodney; Joseph Gallinghouse, G.; Conti, Sergio; Mohanty, Sanghamitra; Bailey, Shane; Trivedi, Chintan; Garg, Aditi; Grogan, Aaron P.; Wallace, Dan T.; Padeletti, Luigi; Reddy, Vivek; Jais, Pierre; Haïssaguerre, Michelle; Natale, Andrea.

In: Heart Rhythm, Vol. 11, No. 3, 03.2014, p. 506-513.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Di Biase, L, Paoletti Perini, A, Mohanty, P, Goldenberg, AS, Grifoni, G, Santangeli, P, Santoro, F, Sanchez, JE, Horton, R, Joseph Gallinghouse, G, Conti, S, Mohanty, S, Bailey, S, Trivedi, C, Garg, A, Grogan, AP, Wallace, DT, Padeletti, L, Reddy, V, Jais, P, Haïssaguerre, M & Natale, A 2014, 'Visual, tactile, and contact force feedback: Which one is more important for catheter ablation? Results from an in vitro experimental study', Heart Rhythm, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 506-513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm.2013.11.016
Di Biase, Luigi ; Paoletti Perini, Alessandro ; Mohanty, Prasant ; Goldenberg, Alex S. ; Grifoni, Gino ; Santangeli, Pasquale ; Santoro, Francesco ; Sanchez, Javier E. ; Horton, Rodney ; Joseph Gallinghouse, G. ; Conti, Sergio ; Mohanty, Sanghamitra ; Bailey, Shane ; Trivedi, Chintan ; Garg, Aditi ; Grogan, Aaron P. ; Wallace, Dan T. ; Padeletti, Luigi ; Reddy, Vivek ; Jais, Pierre ; Haïssaguerre, Michelle ; Natale, Andrea. / Visual, tactile, and contact force feedback : Which one is more important for catheter ablation? Results from an in vitro experimental study. In: Heart Rhythm. 2014 ; Vol. 11, No. 3. pp. 506-513.
@article{e4c5336d21a0402bb6695e7aec6f500f,
title = "Visual, tactile, and contact force feedback: Which one is more important for catheter ablation? Results from an in vitro experimental study",
abstract = "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.",
keywords = "Ablation, Atrial fibrillation, Complications, Contact force, Fluoroscopy, Impedance",
author = "{Di Biase}, Luigi and {Paoletti Perini}, Alessandro and Prasant Mohanty and Goldenberg, {Alex S.} and Gino Grifoni and Pasquale Santangeli and Francesco Santoro and Sanchez, {Javier E.} and Rodney Horton and {Joseph Gallinghouse}, G. and Sergio Conti and Sanghamitra Mohanty and Shane Bailey and Chintan Trivedi and Aditi Garg and Grogan, {Aaron P.} and Wallace, {Dan T.} and Luigi Padeletti and Vivek Reddy and Pierre Jais and Michelle Ha{\"i}ssaguerre and Andrea Natale",
year = "2014",
month = "3",
doi = "10.1016/j.hrthm.2013.11.016",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "11",
pages = "506--513",
journal = "Heart Rhythm",
issn = "1547-5271",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Visual, tactile, and contact force feedback

T2 - Which one is more important for catheter ablation? Results from an in vitro experimental study

AU - Di Biase, Luigi

AU - Paoletti Perini, Alessandro

AU - Mohanty, Prasant

AU - Goldenberg, Alex S.

AU - Grifoni, Gino

AU - Santangeli, Pasquale

AU - Santoro, Francesco

AU - Sanchez, Javier E.

AU - Horton, Rodney

AU - Joseph Gallinghouse, G.

AU - Conti, Sergio

AU - Mohanty, Sanghamitra

AU - Bailey, Shane

AU - Trivedi, Chintan

AU - Garg, Aditi

AU - Grogan, Aaron P.

AU - Wallace, Dan T.

AU - Padeletti, Luigi

AU - Reddy, Vivek

AU - Jais, Pierre

AU - Haïssaguerre, Michelle

AU - Natale, Andrea

PY - 2014/3

Y1 - 2014/3

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Ablation

KW - Atrial fibrillation

KW - Complications

KW - Contact force

KW - Fluoroscopy

KW - Impedance

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84894542877&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84894542877&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.hrthm.2013.11.016

DO - 10.1016/j.hrthm.2013.11.016

M3 - Article

VL - 11

SP - 506

EP - 513

JO - Heart Rhythm

JF - Heart Rhythm

SN - 1547-5271

IS - 3

ER -