Utilization of 3D mapping systems in interventional electrophysiology and its impact on procedure time and fluoroscopy—Insights from the “Go for Zero Fluoroscopy” project
Abstract:AimThe implementation of 3D mapping systems plays an important role in interventional electrophysiology (EP) in recent years. The aim of the present study was to evaluate use of 3D mapping systems regarding fluoroscopy and procedure duration.MethodIn the “Go for Zero Fluoroscopy” project 25 European centers provided data of consecutive EP procedures. Data on use of 3D mapping systems as well as utilization of contact force catheters and multipolar mapping catheters were associated with fluoroscopy time, dose a… Show more
Background: Atrioventricular node (AVN) ablation is an effective treatment for atrial fibrillation (AF) with uncontrolled ventricular rates despite maximal pharmacological treatment. Intracardiac echocardiography (ICE) can help with visualizing structures, positioning catheters, and guiding the ablation procedure. We compared only fluoroscopy-guided and ICE-guided AVN ablation regarding patients with permanent AF. Methods: Sixty-two consecutive patients underwent AVN ablation were enrolled in our retrospective single-center study (ICE group: 28 patients, Standard group: 34 patients). Procedural data, acute and long-term success rate, and complications were analyzed. Results: ICE guidance for AVN ablation significantly reduced fluoroscopy time (0.30 [0.06; 0.85] min vs. 7.95 [3.23; 6.59] min, p < 0.01), first-to-last ablation time (4 [2; 16.3] min vs. 26.5 [2.3; 72.5] min, p = 0.02), and in-procedure time (40 [34; 55] min vs. 60 [45; 110], p = 0.02). There was no difference in either the total ablation time (199 [91; 436] s vs. 294 [110; 659] s, p = 0.22) or in total ablation energy (8272 [4004; 14,651] J vs. 6065 [2708; 16,406] J, p = 0.28). The acute success rate was similar (ICE: 100% vs. Standard: 94%, p = 0.49) between the groups. Conclusions: In our retrospective trial, ICE-guided AVN ablation reduced fluoroscopy time, procedure time, and first-to-last ablation time. There was no difference in ablation time, total ablation energy, acute and long-term success, and complication rate.
Background: Atrioventricular node (AVN) ablation is an effective treatment for atrial fibrillation (AF) with uncontrolled ventricular rates despite maximal pharmacological treatment. Intracardiac echocardiography (ICE) can help with visualizing structures, positioning catheters, and guiding the ablation procedure. We compared only fluoroscopy-guided and ICE-guided AVN ablation regarding patients with permanent AF. Methods: Sixty-two consecutive patients underwent AVN ablation were enrolled in our retrospective single-center study (ICE group: 28 patients, Standard group: 34 patients). Procedural data, acute and long-term success rate, and complications were analyzed. Results: ICE guidance for AVN ablation significantly reduced fluoroscopy time (0.30 [0.06; 0.85] min vs. 7.95 [3.23; 6.59] min, p < 0.01), first-to-last ablation time (4 [2; 16.3] min vs. 26.5 [2.3; 72.5] min, p = 0.02), and in-procedure time (40 [34; 55] min vs. 60 [45; 110], p = 0.02). There was no difference in either the total ablation time (199 [91; 436] s vs. 294 [110; 659] s, p = 0.22) or in total ablation energy (8272 [4004; 14,651] J vs. 6065 [2708; 16,406] J, p = 0.28). The acute success rate was similar (ICE: 100% vs. Standard: 94%, p = 0.49) between the groups. Conclusions: In our retrospective trial, ICE-guided AVN ablation reduced fluoroscopy time, procedure time, and first-to-last ablation time. There was no difference in ablation time, total ablation energy, acute and long-term success, and complication rate.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.