Key result
Exclusive use of electroanatomical mapping for catheter ablation achieved a similar success rate (81.8%) compared to conventional fluoroscopy (91.7%, p=0.46), but required a longer procedure time.
Why the study?
Fluoroscopy used during catheter ablation presents several risks, leading researchers to evaluate whether ablation can be performed using exclusively electroanatomical mapping without fluoroscopy.
Does catheter ablation with exclusive use of electroanatomical mapping improve procedure time and success rates compared to fluoroscopy in patients with tachyarrhythmias?
RCT (n=23)
Single-blind
Computer-generated (www.randomizer.org)
No
Does catheter ablation with exclusive use of electroanatomical mapping improve procedure time and success rates compared to fluoroscopy in patients with tachyarrhythmias?
Absolute Event Rate: 81.8% vs 91.7%
p-value: p=0.46
Zero-fluoroscopy catheter ablation using electroanatomical mapping is feasible and achieves similar success rates to conventional fluoroscopy, though it requires longer procedure times.
Supports radiation-sparing ablation with comparable success; confirms RCT feasibility despite longer procedure times.
BACKGROUND: Catheter ablation provides curative treatment for tachyarrhythmias. Fluoroscopy, the method used for this, presents several risks. The electroanatomical mapping (MEA) presents a three-dimensional image without using X-rays, and may be adjunct to fluoroscopy. OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the possibility of performing catheter ablation with the exclusive use of electroanatomical mapping (MEA), dispensing with fluoroscopy. We compared the total time of procedure and success rates against the technique using fluoroscopy (RX) with emission of X-rays. METHODS: Randomized, unicentric, uni-blind study of patients referred for tachyarrhythmia ablation. RESULTS: Twelve patients were randomized to the XR group and 11 to the EAM group. The mean age was 48.5 (±12.6) vs 46.3 (±16.6) (P = ns). Success occurred in 11 patients (91.7%) in the RX group and 9 (81.8%) in the MEA group (P = 0.46). The procedure time in minutes was higher in the MEA group than in the RX group (79-47-125min vs 49-30-100min; P = 0.006). The mean fluoroscopy time was 11 ± 9 min versus zero (RX vs MEA: P < 0.001). The mean radiofrequency applications were lower in the RX group against the MEA group (6 ± 3.5 × 13.2 ± 18.2 p < 0.019). There were no complications. CONCLUSION: MEA opened new therapeutic possibilities for patients with arrhythmias, reducing the risk of radiation. In this study, it was possible to demonstrate that it is feasible to perform ablation only with the use of MEA, with similar success with fluoroscopy, at the expense of a longer procedure time.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pires et al. (2019) conducted an RCT in Tachyarrhythmia (n=23). Electroanatomical mapping (MEA) without fluoroscopy vs. Conventional fluoroscopy (RX) was evaluated on Procedural success rate (p=0.46). Exclusive use of electroanatomical mapping for catheter ablation achieved a similar success rate (81.8%) compared to conventional fluoroscopy (91.7%, p=0.46), but required a longer procedure time.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: