RESPONSE FOR THE LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Don’t miss a chance taking the best shot!!
Kunihiko Kiuchi
Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine,
Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine
Address for correspondence:
Kunihiko Kiuchi, MD, FHRS
Section of Arrhythmia, Division of Cardiovascular Medicine,
Department of Internal Medicine, Kobe University Graduate School of
Medicine
7-5-2 Kusunoki-chou chuou-ku, Kobe, Hyogo, Japan
Telephone: (81)-78-382-5846
Fax: (81)-78-382-5859
E-mail:
kunihikokiuchi@yahoo.co.jp
Disclosures:
The Section of Arrhythmia was supported by an endowment from Medtronic
JAPAN and Abbott JAPAN. The authors have reported that they have no
relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose.
Funding: None
To the Editor,
We thank Dr. Althoff and Mont for their interest, comments, and
suggestions related to our paper.1 In our study, as
they suggested, LGE-MRI was acquired 1-3 months after the ablation. An
animal study reported that ablation lesions are fully formed by 3 weeks
and are dense with collagen and fat deposition by 6
weeks.2 In our pilot study, the ablation lesion area
dramatically diminished from 1 week to 6 weeks after the procedure in
most of the patients. Furthermore, the ablation lesion area was
comparable between 6 weeks and just 3 months after the ablation. Of
interest, the ablation lesion disappeared after 5-6 months following the
procedure in some patients without AF recurrence. We speculated that the
shrinkage of the ablation lesion might have occurred during the
pathophysiological healing process and reverse remodeling of the left
atrium. Therefore, we considered that the time point of taking the
“best shot” might have been earlier than we expected. Furthermore, the
dose of the contrast agent was important for determining the time point.
Our dose of the contrast agent was 0.1mmol/kg, which was relatively
lower than that of the other groups. To address this issue, further
study will be needed.
As for an internal reference for normalization, the threshold of the
signal intensity was initially determined according to the signal
intensity histogram on the “whole LA wall” in our previous
studies.3,4 However, as the authors suggested, neither
the ablation lesion nor atrial fibrosis could be accurately visualized
in some patients with advanced atrial remodeling. Therefore, the
internal reference was changed from the “whole LA wall” to the
“healthy LA wall” in our recent studies.1,5 We
believed that this simple but important tip might make it possible to
sensitively identify pre-existing atrial fibrosis, particularly
interstitial fibrosis. The signal intensity of ablation lesion was
significantly higher than that of the pre-existing atrial fibrosis. Our
question is whether the ablation lesion characteristics dramatically
differed between the different references in patients without atrial
remodeling. Although we re-analyzed the LGE-MRI with two different
references (“whole LA wall” and “healthy LA wall”), no significant
difference in the lesion characteristics could be found. Cryoballoon
ablation and RF ablation with contact-force sensing catheter induced
intensive inflammation which followed by the artificial
fibrosis.6 In this study, we focused on the
visualization of the ablation lesion not the pre-existing atrial
fibrosis, and patients without atrial remodeling were enrolled. We
considered that the impact of the difference in the reference could be
less than we expected, when we focused on the ablation lesions in
patients without atrial remodeling.
To visualize the atrial fibrosis and the ablation lesion, different
visualization methods were developed. However, very few histological
validations could be found. Furthermore, the dose of the contrast
agents, MRI system, and visualization software completely differed due
to the regulations in each institution. Therefore, it is not surprising
that the image differed between each visualization technique. It is
important to note the reproducibility of the visualization method and
clinical implication of the best shot. The authors had already reported
the reproducibility of their method.7 However, this
issue is still in debate.8 We would like to challenge
to improve the quality of our “best shot” and strengthen both
reproducibility and clinical implication in a further study.
References
1. Kurose J, Kiuchi K, Fukuzawa K, et al. Lesion characteristics between
cryoballoon ablation and radiofrequency ablation with a contact-force
sensing catheter: late-gadolinium enhancement magnetic resonance imaging
assessment. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2020.
2. Avitall B, Kalinski A. Cryotherapy of cardiac arrhythmia: From basic
science to the bedside. Heart Rhythm. 2015;12(10):2195-2203.
3. Shigenaga Y, Kiuchi K, Ikeuchi K, et al. Fusion of
Delayed-enhancement MR Imaging and Contrast-enhanced MR Angiography to
Visualize Radiofrequency Ablation Scar on the Pulmonary Vein. Magn
Reson Med Sci. 2015;14(4):367-372.
4. Kiuchi K, Okajima K, Shimane A, et al. Visualization of the
radiofrequency lesion after pulmonary vein isolation using delayed
enhancement magnetic resonance imaging fused with magnetic resonance
angiography. J Arrhythm. 2015;31(3):152-158.
5. Akita T, Kiuchi K, Fukuzawa K, et al. Lesion distribution after
cryoballoon ablation and hotballoon ablation: Late-gadolinium
enhancement magnetic resonance imaging analysis. J Cardiovasc
Electrophysiol. 2019.
6. Kiuchi K, Fukuzawa K, Mori S, Watanabe Y, Hirata KI. Feasibility of
Imaging Inflammation in the Left Atrium Post AF Ablation Using PET
Technology. JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2017;3(12):1466-1467.
7. Benito EM, Carlosena-Remirez A, Guasch E, et al. Left atrial fibrosis
quantification by late gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance: a new
method to standardize the thresholds for reproducibility.Europace. 2017;19(8):1272-1279.
8. Kamali R, Schroeder J, DiBella E, et al. Reproducibility of Clinical
Late Gadolinium Enhancement Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Detecting Left
Atrial Scar after Atrial Fibrillation Ablation. J Cardiovasc
Electrophysiol. 2020 in press.