Key result
Spontaneous RA-SVC block is linked to ~5 fewer ablation deliveries needed for SVC isolation.
Why the study?
Whether spontaneous RA-SVC conduction block can be used for effective SVC isolation using the CARTO electroanatomical mapping system had not been clarified.
Does utilizing a spontaneous RA-SVC conduction block via the CARTO system reduce the radiofrequency deliveries needed for SVC isolation in patients with atrial fibrillation?
Cohort (n=54)
No
Does utilizing a spontaneous RA-SVC conduction block via the CARTO system reduce the radiofrequency deliveries needed for SVC isolation in patients with atrial fibrillation?
Using the CARTO system's mapping tools to identify spontaneous RA-SVC block allows electrophysiologists to safely isolate the SVC with fewer ablation lesions and shorter procedural times.
Spontaneous RA-SVC block was associated with fewer RF deliveries; hypothesis-generating for mapping-guided SVC isolation efficiency in AF.
Background Previous studies have demonstrated that some patients have spontaneous right atrium (RA)‐superior vena cava (SVC) conduction block, which could be utilized to isolate the SVC effectively by using the Rhythmia mapping system (Boston Scientific). However, employing this approach for SVC isolation using the CARTO electroanatomical mapping system (Biosense Webster) has not yet been clarified. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of SVC isolation using the extended early meets late (EEML) tool with the CARTO system. Methods The patients who underwent SVC isolation using the CARTO system were enrolled in this study. The RA‐SVC conduction block was visualized with an EEML tool. We prospectively assessed the safety and efficacy of SVC isolation using this system. Results We analyzed 54 patients, and all SVCs were successfully isolated with no complications. Altogether, 44 patients (81.5%) had spontaneous RA‐SVC conduction block, and the remaining 10 patients (18.5%) did not. The block group required fewer radiofrequency deliveries for the SVC isolation than the nonblock group (10.7 ± 5.0 vs 15.5 ± 4.8, P = .009). The size of the isolated area in the block group was larger than that in the nonblock group (15.2 ± 5.1 cm 2 vs 12.4 ± 2.5 cm 2 , P = .017). Conclusions Approximately 80% of the patients in this study developed a spontaneous RA‐SVC conduction block, which might contribute to shortening the time of ablation and avoiding complications.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Inagaki et al. (2021) conducted a cohort in Atrial fibrillation (n=54). Spontaneous RA-SVC conduction block vs. No spontaneous RA-SVC conduction block was evaluated on Number of radiofrequency deliveries for SVC isolation (p=0.009). Patients with spontaneous RA-SVC conduction block required significantly fewer radiofrequency deliveries for SVC isolation compared to those without a spontaneous block (10.7 vs 15.5, p=0.009).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: