Key result
A zero-fluoroscopic workflow using intracardiac echocardiography for atrial fibrillation ablation achieved similar 1-year success rates compared to conventional fluoroscopy (76.0% vs 76.9%, p=0.844).
Why the study?
Fluoroscopy during catheter ablation for AF poses radiation risks to patients and staff, prompting the implementation of an ICE-guided zero-fluoroscopic approach in routine clinical practice.
Does a zero-fluoroscopy workflow using intracardiac echocardiography maintain efficacy and safety compared to conventional fluoroscopy in patients undergoing catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation?
Observational (n=103)
No
Does a zero-fluoroscopy workflow using intracardiac echocardiography maintain efficacy and safety compared to conventional fluoroscopy in patients undergoing catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation?
Absolute Event Rate: 76% vs 76.9%
p-value: p=0.844
A zero-fluoroscopy workflow using intracardiac echocardiography for atrial fibrillation ablation is feasible and safe, achieving comparable success rates to conventional fluoroscopy even in repeat procedures.
ICE-guided zero-fluoroscopy PVI appears feasible; leaves open safety, efficacy, and radiation reduction versus fluoroscopy in randomized trials.
OBJECTIVE: Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) is the cornerstone of the interventional treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF). Traditionally, during these procedures the catheters are guided by fluoroscopy, which poses a risk to the patient and staff by ionizing radiation. Our aim was to describe our experience in the implementation of an intracardiac echocardiography (ICE) guided zero fluoroscopic (ZF) ablation approach to our routine clinical practice. METHODS: We developed a simplified ICE guided technique to perform ablation procedures for AF, with the aid of a 3D electroanatomical mapping system. The workflow was implemented in two phases: (1) the Introductory phase, where the first 16 ZF PVIs were compared with 16 cases performed with fluoroscopy and (2) the Extension phase, where 71 consecutive patients (including repeat procedures) with ZF approach were included. Standard PVI (and redoPVI) procedures were performed, data on feasibility of the ZF approach, complications, acute and 1-year success rates were collected. RESULTS: In the Introductory phase, 94% of the procedures could be performed with complete ZF with a median procedure time of 77.5 (73.5-83) minutes. In one case fluoroscopy was used to guide the ICE catheter to the atrium. There was no difference in the complication, acute and 1-year success rates, compared with fluoroscopy guided procedures. In the Extension phase, 97% of the procedures could be completed with complete ZF. In one case fluoroscopy was used to guide the transseptal puncture and in another to position the ICE catheter. Acute success of PVI was achieved in all cases, 64.4% patients were arrhythmia free at 1-year. Acute major complications were observed in 4 cases, all of these occurred in the redo PVI group and consisted of 2 tamponades, 1 transient ischemic attack and 1 pseudoaneurysm at the puncture site. The procedures were carried out by all members of the electrophysiology unit in the Extension phase, including less experienced operators and electrophysiology fellows (3 physicians) under the supervision of the senior electrophysiologist. Consequently, procedure times became longer [90 (75-105) vs 77.5 (73.5-85) min, p = 0.014]. CONCLUSIONS: According to our results, a ZF workflow of AF ablations can be successfully implemented into the routine practice of an electrophysiology laboratory, without compromising safety and effectivity.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tahin et al. (2021) conducted an observational in Symptomatic, non-valvular atrial fibrillation (n=103). Zero fluoroscopic workflow using intracardiac echocardiography vs. Fluoroscopy guided workflow was evaluated on Freedom from atrial fibrillation at 1 year (p=0.844). A zero-fluoroscopic workflow using intracardiac echocardiography for atrial fibrillation ablation achieved similar 1-year success rates compared to conventional fluoroscopy (76.0% vs 76.9%, p=0.844).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: