Why the study?
Does accessory pathway location affect procedural outcomes and success rates of low energy direct current ablation in patients with Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome?
Does accessory pathway location affect procedural outcomes and success rates of low energy direct current ablation in patients with Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome?
Low energy direct current ablation is highly successful for Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome, though posteroseptal pathways require longer procedural and fluoroscopy times compared to left free-wall pathways.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May guide procedural planning by pathway location in WPW ablation; leaves open need for randomized outcome comparisons.
Forty-five patients with the Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome underwent direct current (DC) ablation using a low energy power source (Cardiac Recorders). Anodal shocks of 10-40 joules were given to either a 6 French quadripolar catheter (Bard), a 7 French bipolar contoured catheter (Bard), or a 7 French deflectable catheter with a 4-mm distal electrode (Mansfield). The indifferent electrode consisted of a large patch that was positioned under the left scapula. There were 26 males and 19 females, with a mean age of 34 years (range 9-67). Accessory pathways were located in the left free wall in 30 patients (67%) and were posteroseptal in 15 patients (33%). The shortest ventriculoatrial interval during mapping (89 +/- 21 msec), the mean cumulative amount of energy per patient (322 +/- 283 joules), and the mean CK-MB rise (45 +/- 30 units, normal 0-30 units) were not significantly different between both groups. Ablation was successful in 29/30 patients (97%) with a left free-wall accessory pathway, and in 13/15 patients (87%) with a posteroseptal accessory pathway. All three patients with failure of ablation had multiple accessory pathways, and two of these patients had Ebstein's anomaly. Patients with left free-wall and posteroseptal accessory pathways, respectively, differed significantly in terms of: total session time (4.1 +/- 1 hours vs 5.3 +/- 1.3, p = 0.0001), total procedure time for ablation (2.6 +/- 0.8 hours vs 3.2 +/- 1.2, P = 0.02), and fluoroscopy time (46 +/- 24 min vs 64 +/- 29, P = 0.006). In 13 patients (29%) with a concealed accessory pathway, these variables were not significantly different from patients with overt preexcitation.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lemery et al. (1991) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: