Key result
Electroanatomical mapping without fluoroscopy achieves similar acute procedural success to conventional fluoroscopy for accessory pathways.
Why the study?
Data are limited regarding the feasibility of catheter ablation performed with electroanatomical mapping systems entirely without fluoroscopy in adults with accessory pathways.
Does catheter ablation using electroanatomical mapping without fluoroscopy maintain efficacy and safety compared to ablation with fluoroscopy in patients with an accessory pathway?
Cohort (n=83)
Does catheter ablation using electroanatomical mapping without fluoroscopy maintain efficacy and safety compared to ablation with fluoroscopy in patients with an accessory pathway?
Absolute Event Rate: 95% vs 90.7%
p-value: p=0.449
Catheter ablation of accessory pathways completely guided by electroanatomical mapping without fluoroscopy is feasible, safe, effective, and reduces procedure time compared to conventional methods.
Supports zero-fluoroscopy accessory pathway ablation feasibility; leaves open randomized confirmation of efficacy and safety.
Background: Catheter ablation (CA) is a safe and efficient treatment in patients with an atrioventricular accessory pathway (AP). Electroanatomical mapping (EAM) systems are useful during CA of AP, especially for reducing fluoroscopy. There are limited data about the feasibility of CA procedures performed with the use of the EAM system entirely without fluoroscopy in adults with AP. The aim of the study is to assess the feasibility, efficacy and safety of CA with the use of EAM without fluoroscopy, compared to CA with EAM and fluoroscopy in patients with AP. Methods: The study included 83 consecutive patients (age 38.25 ± 15.8 years), who were subjected to CA for AP. In 40 patients CA was performed with the use of EAM without fluoroscopy (EAM group), and in 43 patients CA was performed with EAM and fluoroscopy (control group). Baseline characteristics, procedure parameters and complications were obtained from the medical records. Data on permanent success rate was obtained after the mean follow-up time of 1 year. Primary outcomes were acute procedural success rate, long term success rate at 1-year follow-up and complications. Secondary outcomes were the procedure time and number of applications. Results: There were no statistically significant differences in baseline characteristics between the groups, except for the AP locations. Right-sided AP was more common in the EAM group, while left-sided AP was more common in the control group (p = 0.007 and p = 0.004, respectively). Acute procedural success was achieved in 38 patients (95.0%) in the EAM group and in 39 patients (90.7%) in the control group (p = 0.449). Long term success rate was achieved in 36 patients (90.0%) in the EAM group and in 36 (83.7%) patients in the control group (p = 0.399). There was one minor complication in the form of RBBB in the EAM group (p = 0.138). The mean procedure time was shorter in the EAM group compared to the control group (93.0 ± 58.3 min vs. 127.6 ± 57.5 min; p = 0.009). Conclusions: CA of both right-sided and left-sided AP completely guided by EAM without the use of fluoroscopy is feasible, safe and effective.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rodkiewicz et al. (2022) conducted a cohort in Atrioventricular accessory pathway (n=83). Catheter ablation with electroanatomical mapping without fluoroscopy vs. Catheter ablation with electroanatomical mapping and fluoroscopy was evaluated on Acute procedural success rate (p=0.449). Catheter ablation of accessory pathways using electroanatomical mapping without fluoroscopy achieved similar acute procedural success compared to conventional fluoroscopy (95.0% vs 90.7%, p=0.449).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: