Key result
Electroanatomic mapping-guided CRT-D implantation significantly reduced mean fluoroscopy time compared to a conventional fluoroscopic approach (5.5 vs. 37.2 minutes; P=0.00003).
Why the study?
To examine the feasibility and safety of a novel protocol for low-fluoroscopy, electroanatomic mapping-guided CRT-D implantation using Carto 3 and EnSite NavX mapping systems.
Does electroanatomic mapping-guided lead placement reduce fluoroscopy time and contrast dose compared to a conventional fluoroscopic approach in patients undergoing CRT-D implantation?
Observational (n=20)
Does electroanatomic mapping-guided lead placement reduce fluoroscopy time and contrast dose compared to a conventional fluoroscopic approach in patients undergoing CRT-D implantation?
Absolute Event Rate: 5.5% vs 37.2%
p-value: p=0.00003
Electroanatomic mapping-guided CRT-D implantation is a feasible alternative to conventional fluoroscopy, significantly reducing radiation exposure and contrast use without prolonging procedure time.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
May reduce radiation exposure during CRT-D implantation; hypothesis-generating and requires randomized confirmation before practice change.
Huang et al. (2019) conducted an observational in Patients undergoing CRT-D implantation (n=20). Electroanatomic mapping (EAM)-guided lead placement vs. Conventional fluoroscopic approach (CFA) was evaluated on Fluoroscopy time (minutes) (p=0.00003). Electroanatomic mapping-guided CRT-D implantation significantly reduced mean fluoroscopy time compared to a conventional fluoroscopic approach (5.5 vs. 37.2 minutes; P=0.00003).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: