Key result
An anatomical approach for slow pathway ablation in AVNRT achieved 100% success and shorter procedure times compared to the conventional potential-guided approach.
Why the study?
Does an anatomical approach reduce procedure time compared to a conventional approach in patients undergoing slow pathway ablation for AVNRT?
Observational (n=43)
Does an anatomical approach reduce procedure time compared to a conventional approach in patients undergoing slow pathway ablation for AVNRT?
An anatomical approach to slow pathway ablation in AVNRT is safe, effective, and significantly reduces procedure time compared to the conventional potential-guided approach.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Anatomical approach associated with shorter AVNRT ablation times; hypothesis-generating pending randomized confirmation.
The slow pathway potential or the slow potential serves as a useful marker in catheter ablation of the slow pathway. However, an anatomical approach without recording of these potentials is also an effective way to cure atrioventricular nodal reentrant tachycardia (AVNRT). Moreover, the origin of these potentials is a matter of controversy. We compared 2 approaches to ascertain whether or not recording of these potentials is necessary in eliminating the slow pathway and to estimate the usefulness of the simple anatomical approach. The study population consisted of 24 patients with a conventional approach (Group P) and 19 patients with an anatomical approach (Group A). In group A, the ablation site was determined by fluoroscopy, which was the lowest one-third of the area between the His bundle electrogram recorded position and the coronary sinus orifice at the right anterior oblique view, and just in front of and above the coronary sinus orifice also posterior to the His catheter at the left anterior oblique view where the His catheter was seen tangentially. The slow pathway was successfully ablated in all patients without any complications, including more than first-degree AV block. Although there were no significant differences in total energy or number of applications between the 2 groups, the procedure time was significantly shorter in group A (p < 0.01). In conclusion, recording of the slow pathway potential or the slow potential is not always necessary for slow pathway ablation in the treatment of AVNRT. Because our anatomical approach was performed simply, effectively and safely, it is recommended for the slow pathway ablation of AVNRT.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Enjoji et al. (1999) conducted an observational in Atrioventricular nodal reentrant tachycardia (AVNRT) (n=43). Anatomical approach for slow pathway ablation vs. Conventional approach recording slow pathway potentials was evaluated on Procedure time (p=<0.01). An anatomical approach for slow pathway ablation in AVNRT achieved 100% success and shorter procedure times compared to the conventional potential-guided approach.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: