Why the study?
Catheter ablation of left-sided accessory pathways via antegrade or retrograde approaches carries x-ray exposure in typically young patients, but the impact of approach choice on radiation dose was unclear.
Does an antegrade transseptal approach reduce radiation dose compared to a retrograde approach in patients undergoing ablation of left-sided accessory pathways?
Does an antegrade transseptal approach reduce radiation dose compared to a retrograde approach in patients undergoing ablation of left-sided accessory pathways?
The antegrade transseptal approach for left-sided accessory pathway ablation significantly reduces patient radiation exposure compared to the retrograde approach without compromising procedural success or safety.
May support antegrade transseptal access to lower radiation; hypothesis-generating, needs randomized confirmation before practice change.
Management of left-sided accessory pathways (APs) is based on catheter ablation through an antegrade or retrograde approach. Both are safe and effective but are associated with exposure to x-rays; however, recipients of ablation are generally young. We sought to evaluate the impact of the approach chosen on dose–area product (DAP). A total of 95 patients who underwent radiofrequency ablation of a left-sided AP between January 2011 and January 2020 were included. The primary endpoint was the radiation dose received by the patient. Secondary endpoints were procedural success and complication and recurrence rates. The mean age of the study population was 34.3 ± 16.6 years. The antegrade transseptal approach was used in 63.5% of cases. By multivariate analysis, the antegrade transseptal approach was associated with a 53% reduction in DAP ( p < 0.001). The radiation dose received was also significantly associated with body mass index and total fluoroscopy time ( p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in other secondary endpoints between approaches. The use of an antegrade transseptal approach is associated with a significant reduction in DAP compared with the retrograde approach, and procedural success and complication and recurrence rates are similar.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bouchiat et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: