Key result
The use of an electroanatomical mapping system with a fluoroscopy integration module significantly reduced fluoroscopy time (136.93 vs 449.90 seconds, p<0.001) compared to conventional ablation.
Why the study?
AVNRT ablation is usually performed using only fluoroscopy, but electroanatomical mapping systems offer potential to decrease fluoroscopy time.
Does an electroanatomical mapping system with a fluoroscopy integration module reduce fluoroscopy time and radiation exposure in patients undergoing AVNRT ablation compared to conventional fluoroscopy?
Cohort (n=119)
No
Does an electroanatomical mapping system with a fluoroscopy integration module reduce fluoroscopy time and radiation exposure in patients undergoing AVNRT ablation compared to conventional fluoroscopy?
Absolute Event Rate: 136.93% vs 449.9%
p-value: p=<0.001
The use of an electroanatomical mapping system with a fluoroscopy integration module significantly reduces radiation exposure and fluoroscopy time during AVNRT ablation without prolonging procedure time.
May reduce fluoroscopy in AVNRT ablation; leaves open whether outcomes improve versus conventional mapping in routine use.
Introduction: Atrioventricular nodal reentrant tachycardia (AVNRT) is a common supraventricular tachycardia. Current guidelines recommend electrophysiology study (EPS) and ablation, which have been proven to show high success rates with very low complication rates. Usually, ablation of AVNRT is performed conventionally using only fluoroscopy. Electroanatomical mapping systems (EMS) are widely used in complex arrhythmias. One of their advantages is their potential in decreasing the need of fluoroscopy time (FT). In this study we analyzed patients undergoing either conventional AVNRT ablation or by using an EMS with a fluoroscopy integrating system (FIS). Materials and Methods: We included 119 patients who underwent AVNRT ablation in our study. Eighty-nine patients were ablated conventionally using only fluoroscopy, 30 patients were ablated using EMS + FIS. Results: We found that the use of EMS + FIS led to a significant reduction of FT (449.90 ± 217.21 vs. 136.93 ± 109.28 sec., p < 0.001) and dose-area-product (DAP, 268.27 ± 265.20 vs. 41.07 ± 27.89 μGym 2 , p < 0.001) without affecting the procedure time (PT, 66.55 ± 13.3 vs. 67.33 ± 13.81 min, p = 0.783). Furthermore, we found no significance with regard to complications. Conclusion: The use of EMS+FIS is safe and feasible. It leads to a significant reduction of both FT and DAP without affecting PT and safety. Hence, EMS + FIS is beneficial for both the operator and the patients by reducing the radiation exposure.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Blockhaus et al. (2021) conducted a cohort in Atrioventricular nodal reentrant tachycardia (AVNRT) (n=119). Electroanatomical mapping system with fluoroscopy integration module (EMS + FIS) vs. Conventional ablation using only fluoroscopy was evaluated on Fluoroscopy time (seconds) (p=<0.001). The use of an electroanatomical mapping system with a fluoroscopy integration module significantly reduced fluoroscopy time (136.93 vs 449.90 seconds, p<0.001) compared to conventional ablation.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: