Why the study?
Conventional catheter ablation involves prolonged ionizing radiation exposure, and data on the safety and efficacy of minimal fluoroscopy as an alternative remain limited.
Does a minimal fluoroscopy technique maintain efficacy and safety compared to conventional fluoroscopy in patients undergoing catheter ablation?
Does a minimal fluoroscopy technique maintain efficacy and safety compared to conventional fluoroscopy in patients undergoing catheter ablation?
Minimal fluoroscopy for catheter ablation significantly reduces procedural and fluoroscopy time without compromising acute or long-term success or increasing complications compared to conventional approaches.
Supports minimal-fluoroscopy ablation to reduce radiation and time; confirms comparable efficacy and safety.
BACKGROUND: Conventional catheter ablation involves prolonged exposure to ionizing radiation, potentially leading to detrimental health effects. Minimal fluoroscopy (MF) represents a safer alternative, which should be explored. Data on the safety and efficacy of this technique are limited. HYPOTHESIS: Our hypothesis is that MF is of equal efficacy and safety to conventional catheter ablation with the use of fluoroscopy by performing a meta-analysis of both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and real-world registry studies. METHODS: Pubmed and Embase were searched from their inception to July 2020 for RCTs, cohort and observational studies that assessed the outcomes of catheter ablation using a MF technique versus the conventional approach. RESULTS: Fifteen studies involving 3795 patients were included in this meta-analysis. There was a significant reduction in fluoroscopy and procedural time with no difference in acute success (odds ratio [OR]:0.74, 95% CI: 0.50-1.10, p = .14), long-term success (OR:0.92, 95% CI: 0.65-1.31, p = .38), arrhythmia recurrence (OR:1.24, 95% CI: 0.75-2.06, p = .97) or rate of complications. (OR:0.83, 95% CI: 0.46-1.48, p = .65). Additionally sub-group analysis for those undergoing catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) did not demonstrate a difference in success or complication rates (OR:0.86, 95% CI: 0.30-2.42, p = .77). Multivariate meta-regression did not identify the presence of moderator variables. CONCLUSION: This updated meta-analysis demonstrated an overall reduction in procedural and fluoroscopy time for those undergoing a minimal fluoroscopic approach. There was no significant difference in either acute or chronic success rates or complications between a MF approach and conventional approach for the management of all arrhythmias including those undergoing catheter ablation for AF.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chiang et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: