ICE-guided atrial fibrillation ablation reduced complications by 31% and mortality by 79%, while improving first-pass pulmonary vein isolation rates compared to non-ICE guidance.
Does intracardiac echocardiography (ICE) guidance improve safety, efficacy, and procedural performance in patients undergoing atrial fibrillation ablation compared to non-ICE guidance?
ICE-guided AF ablation significantly improves procedural safety (reducing complications, tamponade, and mortality) and efficiency without compromising long-term efficacy compared to non-ICE approaches.
Abstract Aims Intracardiac echocardiography (ICE) is increasingly incorporated into atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation workflows, enabling real-time anatomic guidance and procedural precision. Nevertheless, ICE utilization shows substantial geographic variability, and its clinical benefit remains incompletely understood. This meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy, safety, and procedural performance of ICE-guided versus non–ICE-guided AF ablation. Methods and Results MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, and Scopus were systematically searched through 3 August 2025. Three reviewers independently performed study selection, data extraction, and risk-of-bias assessment. Random-effects models were used to pool data from 44 AF ablation studies comprising 482,043 patients. ICE guidance was associated with lower odds of any complication (OR 0.69; 95% CI 0.53–0.89), including significant reductions in cardiac tamponade (OR 0.58; 95% CI 0.53–0.62) and mortality (OR 0.21; 95% CI 0.16–0.27). ICE-guided ablation was also associated with shorter total procedure and fluoroscopy times, reduced radiation exposure, and lower contrast agent utilization. Atrial tachyarrhythmia (AT) recurrence did not differ between groups (OR 0.92; 95% CI 0.79–1.06). However, ICE use was associated with higher odds of first-pass pulmonary vein isolation (OR 1.62; 95% CI 1.09–2.41) and successful isolation of all pulmonary veins at the end of the procedure (OR 2.12; 95% CI 1.37–3.27), and lower odds of repeat ablation (OR 0.65; 95% CI 0.59–0.72). Conclusion ICE-guided AF ablation is associated with superior procedural safety and efficiency and a similar risk of AT recurrence compared to non–ICE-guided approaches.
Karakasis et al. (2026) studied this question. ICE-guided atrial fibrillation ablation reduced complications by 31% and mortality by 79%, while improving first-pass pulmonary vein isolation rates compared to non-ICE guidance.