Key result
Zero-fluoroscopy ablation for supraventricular tachycardia in patients with CIED leads achieved 100% acute procedural success versus 98.1% with conventional fluoroscopy (P=1.00).
Why the study?
Data are limited on zero-fluoroscopy ablation in patients with cardiac electronic implantable device leads given the suspected risk of lead injury.
Does zero-fluoroscopy ablation using 3-D mapping and ICE maintain efficacy and safety compared to conventional fluoroscopy in patients with CIEDs undergoing SVT ablation?
Cohort (n=68)
Does zero-fluoroscopy ablation using 3-D mapping and ICE maintain efficacy and safety compared to conventional fluoroscopy in patients with CIEDs undergoing SVT ablation?
Absolute Event Rate: 100% vs 98.1%
p-value: p=1.00
Zero-fluoroscopy ablation using 3-D mapping and ICE is feasible and safe in patients with CIEDs, with no increased risk of lead injury compared to conventional fluoroscopy.
Supports zero-fluoroscopy SVT ablation feasibility in CIED patients; hypothesis-generating, requiring randomized confirmation before practice change.
Introduction: Utilizing a 3-dimensional (3-D) mapping system and intracardiac echocardiography (ICE) has allowed ablation procedures with less or without fluoroscopy; however, there is limited data for patients with cardiac electronic implantable device (CIED) leads regarding the suspected risk of lead injury. Therefore, we sought to explore technics to perform safe trans-septal approach and catheter manipulation technique in patients with CIED leads. Methods and Results: This study comprised 68 consecutive patients (45 [66.2%] males, median [interquartile range] 73 [68–77] years old) with CIED who underwent catheter ablation for supraventricular tachycardia, 16 without fluoroscopy (zero-fluoro group) and 52 with fluoroscopy (conventional-fluoro group), between July 2019 and April 2021. All procedures were performed under a 3-D mapping system and ICE guidance. We compared the differences in treatment and development of complications between the two groups. The procedures were mainly atrial fibrillation (73.6%) and atrial tachycardia. The median time from venipuncture to trans-septal procedure (zero-fluoro vs. conventional-fluoro group: 27.0 min vs. 23.5 min, P=0.71) and total procedure time (215 min vs. 172 min, P=0.55) were not different between the two groups. The acute procedural success rate (100% vs. 98.1%, P=1.00) and reduction of atrial high-rate episodes at 6 months (3.2 [0.3–93.9]% vs. 1.0 [0.0–14.9]%, P=0.33) did not differ between the two groups. No patient showed lead-related complications in both groups. Conclusions: Zero-fluoro ablation for supraventricular arrhythmia using 3-D mapping and ICE in patients with CIED leads was feasible under careful catheter manipulation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shimamoto et al. (2021) conducted a cohort in Supraventricular tachycardia in patients with cardiac electronic implantable devices (n=68). Zero-fluoroscopy ablation vs. Conventional fluoroscopy ablation was evaluated on Acute procedural success rate (p=1.00). Zero-fluoroscopy ablation for supraventricular tachycardia in patients with CIED leads achieved 100% acute procedural success versus 98.1% with conventional fluoroscopy (P=1.00).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: