Key result
Fluoroless CTI ablation for typical atrial flutter yielded similar 1-year recurrence to fluoroscopic ablation, while significantly reducing total procedure time (60 vs 99 minutes, P<0.001).
Why the study?
Most cavotricuspid isthmus ablation procedures still use fluoroscopy despite 3D mapping systems, leaving the effectiveness and safety of fluoroless ablation compared to fluoroscopy uncertain.
Does fluoroless CTI ablation reduce procedural times and maintain efficacy in preventing AFL recurrence in patients with typical atrial flutter compared to fluoroscopic ablation?
Cohort (n=324)
No
Does fluoroless CTI ablation reduce procedural times and maintain efficacy in preventing AFL recurrence in patients with typical atrial flutter compared to fluoroscopic ablation?
Fluoroless CTI ablation for typical atrial flutter is safe and effective, significantly reducing procedural and radiofrequency times without increasing recurrence rates compared to traditional fluoroscopic methods.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May shorten procedures with similar recurrence; leaves open need for randomized confirmation before routine fluoroless CTI ablation.
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Cavotricuspid isthmus (CTI) ablation for typical atrial flutter (AFL) has improved in recent years, especially with three-dimensional (3D) electroanatomic mapping systems. These tools allow a better understanding of the arrhythmia with higher ablation success rates while reducing radiation exposure. However, most ablation procedures still require varying amounts of fluoroscopy. Our aim was to examine whether fluoroless CTI ablation is effective and safe in reducing AFL recurrence, compared with CTI ablation using fluoroscopy. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of CTI ablations performed at a tertiary center between December 2010 and December 2022. Patients were divided into two groups: fluoroless and fluoroscopic, according to the use of radiation. Procedural duration, fluoroscopy time (FT), radiofrequency time (RF), acute complications and recurrence rates at one year were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 324 CTI ablations were performed. Mean age was 62.3±14.0 years, with 78.1% male patients. The FT was zero in the fluoroless group (n=31), and 7.0±7.0 minutes in the fluoroscopic group (n=293) (p<0.001). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups, regarding AFL recurrence at one year. RF was shorter in the fluoroless group (8±4 vs. 14±11 minutes, p<0.001). Total time procedure duration was shorter in the fluoroless group (60±20 minutes vs. 99±45 minutes, p<0.001). There were no acute complications. CONCLUSION: Fluoroless CTI ablation, avoiding any radiation exposure to the patient and operator, can be performed in patients with typical AFL, without compromising duration, safety or efficacy of the procedure.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jacinto et al. (2025) conducted a cohort in Typical atrial flutter (n=324). Fluoroless cavotricuspid isthmus (CTI) ablation vs. CTI ablation using fluoroscopy was evaluated on Atrial flutter recurrence at one year. Fluoroless CTI ablation for typical atrial flutter yielded similar 1-year recurrence to fluoroscopic ablation, while significantly reducing total procedure time (60 vs 99 minutes, P<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: