Meta‐analysis of pulmonary vein isolation ablation for atrial fibrillation conventional vs low‐ and zero‐fluoroscopy approaches

Introduction Radiation exposure during catheter ablation procedures is a significant hazard for both patients and operators. Atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation procedures have been historically associated with higher fluoroscopy usage than other electrophysiology procedures. Recent efforts have been made to reduce dependence on fluoroscopy during pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) ablation procedures using alternative techniques. Methods We performed a meta‐analysis of studies comparing zero or low fluoroscopy (LF) vs conventional fluoroscopy (CF) approaches for AF ablation. Outcomes of interest included acute and 12‐month procedural efficacy, safety, procedure duration, fluoroscopy time, and dose area product. Aggregated data were analyzed with random‐effects models, using a Bayesian hierarchical approach. Results A total of 2228 participants (LF, n = 1190 vs CF, n = 1038) from 15 studies were included in the meta‐analysis. Risk of AF recurrence in 12 months (odds ratio [OR], 95% confidence interval [95% CI] = 1.343 [0.771‐2.340]; P = .297), redo‐ablation procedures (OR [95% CI] = 0.521 [0.198‐1.323]; P = .186), and procedural complications (OR [95% CI] = 0.99 [0.485‐2.204]; P = .979) were similar between LF‐ and CF‐ablation groups. In comparison to CF ablation, LF ablation led to shorter procedure duration (weighted mean differences [WMDs] [95% CI] = −14.6 minutes [−22.5 to −6.8]; P < .001), fluoroscopy time (WMD [95% CI] = −8.8 minutes [−11.9 to −5.9]; P < .001), and dose area product (WMD [95% CI] = −1946 mGy/cm 2 [−2685 to 1207]; P < .001). Conclusion LF approaches have similar clinical efficacy and safety as CF approaches for PVI. LF approaches are associated with shorter procedure time, fluoroscopy usage, and dose area product during PVI.