Key result
AV dual-chamber mapping is linked to ~67% fewer RF applications versus conventional mapping for accessory pathways.
Why the study?
The study aimed to evaluate the utility of simultaneous high-density 3D atrio-ventricular dual-chamber mapping using the Rhythmia system for catheter ablation of accessory pathways.
Does ultrahigh density atrio-ventricular dual-chamber mapping improve procedural efficiency compared to conventional single-chamber mapping in patients undergoing ablation of accessory pathways?
Cohort (n=111)
Does ultrahigh density atrio-ventricular dual-chamber mapping improve procedural efficiency compared to conventional single-chamber mapping in patients undergoing ablation of accessory pathways?
Absolute Event Rate: 1% vs 3%
p-value: p=0.0023
Ultrahigh density atrio-ventricular dual-chamber mapping significantly improves procedural efficiency and reduces radiation exposure during ablation of accessory pathways compared to conventional single-chamber mapping.
May reduce RF applications in accessory pathway ablation; hypothesis-generating and requires randomized confirmation.
INTRODUCTION: Detailed three-dimensional (3D) mapping has been useful for effective radiofrequency catheter ablation. The Rhythmia system can create atrio-ventricular dual-chamber mapping, which reveals the atrial and ventricular potentials all at once in the same map. The aim of this study was to investigate the utility of mapping the atrium and ventricle simultaneously with a high-density 3D mapping system for the ablation of accessory pathways (AP). METHODS: From July 2015 to August 2020, 111 patients underwent ablation of APs. Dual-chamber maps were created in 50 patients (median age 15 [10-54], 32 male [64.0%]), while 61 patients underwent radiofrequency (RF) ablation with conventional single-chamber 3D maps. The background characteristics and procedural details were compared between the dual-chamber mapping group and the conventional single-chamber mapping group. RESULTS: The number of RF applications (median [IQR]; 1.0 [1.0-3.0] vs. 3.0 [1.0-6.0], p = .0023), RF time (median [IQR], s; 9.2 [2.0-95.7] vs. 95.6 [4.1-248.7], p = .0107), and RF energy (median [IQR], J; 248.4 [58.7-3328.2] vs. 2867.6 [134.2-7728.4], p = .0115) were significantly lower in the dual-chamber group. The fluoroscopy time (median [IQR], min; 19.9 [14.2-26.1] vs. 26.5 [17.7-43.4], p = .0025) and fluoroscopy dose (median [IQR], mGy; 52.5 [31.3-146.0] vs. 119.0 [43.7-213.5], p = .0249) were also significantly lower in the dual-chamber than single-chamber mapping group. CONCLUSION: The dual-chamber mapping was useful for ablating accessory pathways and reducing the number of RF applications, total RF energy, and radiation exposure as compared with traditional mapping techniques.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mori et al. (2021) conducted a cohort in Accessory pathways (n=111). Atrio-ventricular dual-chamber mapping vs. Conventional single-chamber 3D mapping was evaluated on Number of radiofrequency applications (p=0.0023). Atrio-ventricular dual-chamber mapping for accessory pathway ablation significantly reduced the median number of radiofrequency applications compared to conventional mapping (1.0 vs. 3.0, p=0.0023).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: