Key result
Minimally fluoroscopic ablation using EAM and echocardiography significantly reduced the estimated lifetime additional cancer risk compared to conventional ablation (0.001% vs 0.18%; P<0.001).
Why the study?
Radiation exposure during catheter ablation carries risks including malignancy, and 3-D mapping can reduce fluoroscopy exposure, prompting evaluation of lifetime additional cancer risk with minimally fluoroscopic versus conventional ablation.
Does an EAM- and echocardiography-guided minimally fluoroscopic ablation approach reduce estimated lifetime cancer risk compared to conventional fluoroscopically guided ablation in adults with high-risk accessory pathways?
Observational (n=60)
Yes
Does an EAM- and echocardiography-guided minimally fluoroscopic ablation approach reduce estimated lifetime cancer risk compared to conventional fluoroscopically guided ablation in adults with high-risk accessory pathways?
Absolute Event Rate: 0.001% vs 0.18%
p-value: p=<0.001
A minimally fluoroscopic approach using 3D mapping and echocardiography for accessory pathway ablation significantly reduces radiation exposure and estimated lifetime cancer risk compared to conventional fluoroscopy.
Supports minimal-fluoroscopy ablation to lower cancer risk; hypothesis-generating without randomized outcome data.
Introduction Catheter ablation is the treatment of choice for accessory pathways (AP) in high risk patients and it´s usually performed under fluoroscopy guidance (reported X-Ray time:16 -38min).Radiation exposure is associated with an increased incidence of dermatitis,gene defects, cataract and malignancy.3-D mapping systems(EAMS) can reduce fluoroscopy exposure. Purpose To evaluate the additional cancer risk throughout life in 2 homogeneous adult populations of high-risk APs treated either with conventional fluoroscopically guided ablation (CFA) or with an EAM- and echocardiography(TEE or ICE)guided minimally fluoroscopic ablation approach (MFA).Methods: 2 Center study, 60 consecutive pts enrolled; 31pts underwent CFA at IRCCS Policlinico san Matteo (Pavia) and 29 pts underwent EAM guided MFA at Klinikum Fuerth between 01/2016 and 09/2019.The age and gender-adjusted cancer risk was calculated following Monte Carlo code,according to Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR VII) empirical risk models. Results The estimated additional cancer risk throughout life gained with a single ablation procedure was significatively different between groups:0.18% in CFA compared to 0.001% in MFA group(P < 0.001).The maximum estimated additional cancer risk for a patient undergoing CFA was 1%.10 out of 29 MFA procedures(35%)were successfully performed with zero fluoroscopy. Conclusions:Our small study demonstrates that an echocardiography/EAM guided approach allows safe AP ablation adding a significantly reduced estimated cancer risk compared to CFA in young adults,a population sensitive to X-ray exposure regarding the stochastic risk of developing malignancies.This finding strongly supports the recommendation for a routine use of EAMS in AP ablations,including appropriate reimbursement. Results Conventional fluoroscopic approach Minimal fluoroscopic approach p Patient (N) 31 29 n.s. Age (Y) 43.7 ± 14 44.7 ± 17 n.s. Right AP 10 6 n.s. Left Ap 21 23 n.s. Transeptal Access 20 22 n.s. Complications 1 (3%) 0 n.s. DAP (µGy*m2) 15252+/-11132 56.8+/-135.6 0.000 Effective Dose (mSv) 30.35+/-27.7 0.09+/-0.28 0.000. Additional Cancer Risk 0.18% 0.001% >0.001 N, number; Y, years; AP, Accessory Pathway.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bastian et al. (2020) conducted an observational in Accessory pathways (n=60). EAM- and echocardiography-guided minimally fluoroscopic ablation (MFA) vs. Conventional fluoroscopically guided ablation (CFA) was evaluated on Estimated additional cancer risk throughout life (p=<0.001). Minimally fluoroscopic ablation using EAM and echocardiography significantly reduced the estimated lifetime additional cancer risk compared to conventional ablation (0.001% vs 0.18%; P<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: