Key result
EAMS guidance adds ~11 minutes to slow pathway ablation vs ICE but shortens fluoroscopy time.
Why the study?
While ICE guidance improves procedural outcomes compared with fluoroscopy alone during SP ablation for AVNRT, its effectiveness compared with an EAMS-guided approach was unknown.
Does electroanatomical mapping system (EAMS)-guided ablation improve procedural outcomes compared to intracardiac echocardiography (ICE)-guided ablation in patients undergoing slow pathway ablation for AVNRT?
RCT (n=80)
No
Does electroanatomical mapping system (EAMS)-guided ablation improve procedural outcomes compared to intracardiac echocardiography (ICE)-guided ablation in patients undergoing slow pathway ablation for AVNRT?
ICE-guided slow pathway ablation for AVNRT reduces procedure and ablation times compared to EAMS guidance, though EAMS guidance eliminates radiation exposure.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
ICE guidance shortens procedure time versus EAMS in AVNRT ablation; extends RCT data on mapping modalities with radiation trade-offs.
Radiofrequency (RF) catheter ablation is an effective treatment option for targeting the slow pathway (SP) in atrioventricular nodal reentry tachycardia (AVNRT). Previous data suggested that using intracardiac echocardiography (ICE) guidance could improve procedural outcomes when compared to using fluoroscopy alone. In this prospective study, we aimed to compare the effectiveness of an electroanatomical mapping system (EAMS)-guided approach with an ICE-guided approach for SP ablation. Eighty patients undergoing SP ablation for AVNRT were randomly assigned to either the ICE-guided or EAMS-guided group. If the procedural endpoint was not achieved after 8 RF applications; patients were allowed to crossover to the ICE-guided group. The ICE-guided approach reduced the total procedure time (61.0 (56.0; 66.8) min vs. 71.5 (61.0; 80.8) min, p < 0.01). However, the total fluoroscopy time was shorter (0 (0–0) s vs. 83.5 (58.5–133.25) s, p < 0.001) and the radiation dose was lower (0 (0–0) mGy vs. 3.3 (2.0–4.7) mGy, p < 0.001) with EAMS-guidance. The ICE-guided group had a lower number of RF applications (4 (3–5) vs. 5 (3.0–7.8), p = 0.03) and total ablation time (98.5 (66.8–186) s vs. 136.5 (100.5–215.8) s, p = 0.02). Nine out of 40 patients (22.5%) in the EAMS-guided group crossed over to the ICE-guided group, and they were successfully treated with similar RF applications in terms of number, time, and energy compared to the ICE-guided group. There were no recurrences during the follow-up period. In conclusion, the utilization of ICE guidance during SP ablation has demonstrated notable reductions in procedural time and RF delivery when compared to procedures guided by EAMS. In challenging cases, an early switch to ICE-guided ablation may be the optimal choice for achieving successful treatment.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bocz et al. (2023) conducted an RCT in Atrioventricular nodal reentry tachycardia (AVNRT) (n=80). Electroanatomical mapping system (EAMS)-guided ablation vs. Intracardiac echocardiography (ICE)-guided ablation was evaluated on Total procedure time (minutes) (p=<0.01). Electroanatomical mapping system (EAMS)-guided slow pathway ablation resulted in longer total procedure time (71.5 vs 61.0 min, p<0.01) but shorter fluoroscopy time compared to ICE guidance.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: