Key result
The transaortic approach for left-sided catheter ablation resulted in significantly fewer microembolic signals compared to the transseptal approach (3.8 vs 75, P=0.001).
Why the study?
Does a transseptal approach increase the number of cerebral microembolic signals compared to a transaortic approach during left-sided catheter ablation in patients with SVT or idiopathic VA?
Observational (n=36)
Does a transseptal approach increase the number of cerebral microembolic signals compared to a transaortic approach during left-sided catheter ablation in patients with SVT or idiopathic VA?
Absolute Event Rate: 3.8% vs 75%
p-value: p=0.001
The transseptal approach for left-sided catheter ablation is associated with a significantly higher number of cerebral microembolic signals compared to the retrograde aortic approach, though no acute neurological impairment was observed.
Transseptal approach linked to more microemboli; hypothesis-generating for clinical impact and randomized trials.
Aims: Subclinical brain damage due to microembolization could occur during catheter ablation procedures. We evaluated the microembolic signals (MESs) detected by transcranial Doppler during ablation of supraventricular tachycardias (SVTs) or idiopathic ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) with the use of different approaches. Methods and results: This study included 36 patients (23 men, 49 ± 21 years) who underwent catheter ablation of SVTs (n = 27) or idiopathic VAs (n = 9). Left-sided ablation was performed by either a transaortic (Group 1, n = 11) or transseptal approach (Group 2, n = 9). A sole right-sided ablation was performed in the remaining 16 patients (Group 3). The MESs were counted throughout the procedure, and then analysed offline with a frequency analysis. The mean number of radiofrequency applications, total energy delivery time, total application energy, and total procedure time were 5.8 ± 5.0, 4.3 ± 3.3 min, 6625 ± 4633 J, and 81 ± 40 min, respectively, and there was no significant difference in the parameters between the three groups. The mean total number of MESs was 3.8 ± 3.1 in Group 1, 75 ± 58 in Group 2, and 0.3 ± 0.6 in Group 3 (P = 0.001). Few MESs were detectable during the radiofrequency energy deliveries in all groups. In Group 2, 19 ± 18 MESs were detected during the transseptal puncture period, and subsequently a relatively even distribution of emboli formation was observed. A frequency analysis suggested that 99, 91, and 100% of MESs were gaseous, in Group 1, Group 2, and Group 3, respectively. No neurological impairment was observed in any patients after the procedure. Conclusion: The retrograde aortic approach might potentially have a lower risk of subclinical brain damage than the transseptal approach during left-sided catheter ablation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Iwasawa et al. (2016) conducted an observational in Supraventricular tachycardias or idiopathic ventricular arrhythmias (n=36). Transaortic approach vs. Transseptal approach was evaluated on Mean total number of microembolic signals (MESs) (p=0.001). The transaortic approach for left-sided catheter ablation resulted in significantly fewer microembolic signals compared to the transseptal approach (3.8 vs 75, P=0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: