Why the study?
Comparative data were virtually missing regarding the performance of different electro-anatomical mapping system platforms on outflow tract premature ventricular complex ablation outcomes using manual ablation catheters.
Does an impedance-based electro-anatomical mapping platform improve outcomes compared to a magnetic field-based platform in patients undergoing manual ablation for outflow tract premature ventricular complexes?
Does an impedance-based electro-anatomical mapping platform improve outcomes compared to a magnetic field-based platform in patients undergoing manual ablation for outflow tract premature ventricular complexes?
The choice between impedance-based and magnetic field-based electro-anatomical mapping platforms does not significantly affect acute success, complication rates, or long-term recurrence in manual ablation of outflow tract PVCs.
Single-center matched comparison of EAM platforms in OT PVC ablation should not yet change practice; leaves open need for randomized confirmation.
Comparative data are virtually missing about the performance of different electro-anatomical mapping (EAM) system platforms on outflow tract (OT) premature ventricular complex (PVC) ablation outcomes with manual ablation catheters. We aimed to compare the acute success-, complication-, and long-term recurrence rates of impedance-based (IMP) and magnetic field-based (MAG) EAM platforms in manual OT PVC ablation. Single-centre, propensity score matched data of 39-39 patients ablated for OT PVCs in 2015-17 with IMP or MAG platforms were analysed. Acute success rate, peri-procedural complications, post-ablation daily PVC burden, and long-term recurrence rates were compared on intention-to-treat basis. Acute success rate was similar in the IMP and MAG group (77 vs. 82%, p = 0.78). There was a single case of femoral pseudo-aneurysm and no cardiac tamponade occurred. PVC burden fell significantly from baseline 24.0% [15.0-30.0%] to 3.3% [0.25-10.5%] (p < 0.001) post-ablation, with no difference between EAM platforms (IMP: 2.6% [0.5-12.0%] vs. MAG: 4.0% [2.0-6.5%]; p = 0.60). There was no significant difference in recurrence-free survival of the intention-to-treat cohort of the IMP and MAG groups (54 vs. 60%, p = 0.82, respectively) during 12 months of follow-up. Ablation with the aid of both impedance- and magnetic field-based EAM platforms can considerably reduce OT PVC burden and give similar acute- and long-term freedom from arrhythmia.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ábrahám et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: