Evidence Hub

Voltage threshold adjustments for a novel pulsed-field ablation catheter with integrated mapping capabilities: lessons from a case series

Thomas Kueffer, A. Panakal, C. Herrera, H. Tanner, H. Servatius, L. Roten, T. Reichlin

European Heart Journal: Case Reports, 2025

2 citations

Abstract

Abstract Background Accurate electroanatomical mapping relies on voltage thresholds to differentiate electrically inactive areas, fibrotic scar, and healthy myocardium. These thresholds have been well established for high-density mapping catheters with small, closely spaced electrodes. However, the optimal voltage thresholds for a novel pulsed-field ablation catheter with integrated mapping capabilities remain unclear. This case series evaluates different voltage thresholds for the variable-loop circular catheter (VLCC, Varipulse, Biosense Webster) compared with a dedicated high-density mapping catheter (Octaray, Biosense Webster). Case summary Four patients undergoing left atrial catheter ablation—including pulmonary vein isolation (PVI), posterior wall ablation, and ablation for scar-related atrial flutter—were mapped using both the VLCC and Octaray catheter. The key findings include: (i) standard voltage thresholds for high-density catheters overestimate voltage in scarred and ablated tissue when applied to the VLCC, necessitating adjusted voltage settings; (ii) the VLCC effectively identified PVI and reconnections, posterior wall isolation, anterior wall scarring, and atrial flutter circuits; and (iii) while the VLCC identified areas of scar, its representation remained less precise compared with high-density mapping. Discussion This case series demonstrates that the VLCC provides satisfactory mapping performance in common use cases but requires voltage threshold…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case series, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free