Comparing the safety and effectiveness of dedicated radiofrequency transseptal wires to electrified metal guidewires

Background: Application of electrocautery to a metal guidewire is used by some operators to perform transseptal puncture (TSP). Commercially available dedicated radiofrequency (RF) guidewires may represent a better alternative. This study compares the safety and effectiveness of electrified guidewires to a dedicated RF wire.

Methods: TSP was performed on freshly excised porcine hearts using an electrified 0.014″ or 0.032″ guidewire under various power settings and was compared to TSP using a dedicated RF wire with 5 W power (0.035″ VersaCross RF System, Baylis Medical). The primary endpoint was the number of attempts required to achieve TSP. Secondary endpoints included the rate of TSP failure, TSP consistency, the effect of the distance between the tip of the guidewire and the tip of the dilator, and effect of RF power output level. Qualitative secondary endpoints included tissue puncture defect appearance, thermal damage to the TSP guidewire or dilator, and tissue temperature using thermal imaging.

Results: The RF wire required on average 1.10 ± 0.47 attempts to cross the septum. The 0.014″ electrified guidewire required an overall mean of 2.17 ± 2.36 attempts (2.0 times as many as the RF wire; p < .01), and the 0.032″ electrified guidewire required an overall mean of 3.90 ± 2.93 attempts (3.5 times as many as the RF wire; p < .01). Electrified guidewires had a higher rate of TSP failure, and caused larger defects and more tissue charring than the RF wire. Thermal analysis showed higher temperatures and a larger area of tissue heating with electrified guidewires than the RF wire.

Conclusion: Fewer RF applications were required to achieve TSP using a dedicated RF wire compared to an electrified guidewire. Smaller defects and lower tissue temperatures were also observed using the RF wire. Electrified guidewires required greater energy delivery and were associated with equipment damage and tissue charring, which may present a risk of thrombus, thermal injury, or scarring.