Key result
Ultra-high-density mapping for focal atrial tachycardia ablation was associated with higher acute success than conventional mapping (89.6% vs. 68.2%, p=0.03), but similar 12-month arrhythmia freedom.
Why the study?
Catheter ablation is the treatment of choice for recurrent focal atrial tachycardia, but whether optimized signal detection improves ablation success rates had not been investigated.
Does ultra-high-density mapping guided catheter ablation improve acute success and freedom from arrhythmia in patients with focal atrial tachycardia compared to conventional mapping?
Population
70 patients undergoing ablation for FAT
Comparison
UHDM vs CEAM
Design
Single-center retrospective cohort study
Follow-up
12 months
Authors
Loading...
May improve acute success without long-term benefit in focal AT; leaves open need for randomized confirmation.
Cohort (n=70)
No
Does ultra-high-density mapping guided catheter ablation improve acute success and freedom from arrhythmia in patients with focal atrial tachycardia compared to conventional mapping?
Absolute Event Rate: 89.6% vs 68.2%
p-value: p=0.03
Ultra-high-density mapping for focal atrial tachycardia ablation improves acute procedural success but does not translate to improved 12-month arrhythmia-free survival compared to conventional mapping.
Kellnar et al. (2022) conducted a cohort in Focal atrial tachycardia (n=70). Ultra-high-density mapping system (UHDM) vs. Conventional electroanatomic mapping system (CEAM) was evaluated on Acute success (p=0.03). Ultra-high-density mapping for focal atrial tachycardia ablation was associated with higher acute success than conventional mapping (89.6% vs. 68.2%, p=0.03), but similar 12-month arrhythmia freedom.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: