Why the study?
To evaluate the effectiveness of a novel, sensor-based, electromagnetic non-fluoroscopic catheter visualization system during catheter ablation for idiopathic premature ventricular contractions or ventricular tachycardia.
Does a non-fluoroscopic catheter visualization system reduce fluoroscopy time without compromising efficacy compared to conventional fluoroscopy in patients undergoing i-PVC/VT ablation?
Does a non-fluoroscopic catheter visualization system reduce fluoroscopy time without compromising efficacy compared to conventional fluoroscopy in patients undergoing i-PVC/VT ablation?
The use of a non-fluoroscopic catheter visualization system during i-PVC/VT ablation dramatically reduces fluoroscopy time while maintaining procedural efficacy and safety.
May reduce radiation exposure in i-PVC/VT ablation; leaves open confirmation in randomized trials.
A novel, sensor-based, electromagnetic, non-fluoroscopic catheter visualization (NFCV) system shows tracked catheters directly on pre-acquired fluoroscopy or cine loops. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of this system in the setting of catheter ablation for idiopathic premature ventricular contractions/ventricular tachycardia (i-PVC/VT).A total of 30 i-PVC/VT ablation procedures were performed using the NFCV system in conjunction with three-dimensional electroanatomic mapping system (3D-EMS) between January 2013 and April 2017. At the beginning of the procedure, cine loops of right and left anterior oblique views were obtained and replayed for subsequent mapping and ablation. Right ventriculography, aortography, or coronary angiography was performed, depending on the chamber of interest. We reviewed procedural parameters, comparing with the i-PVC/VT ablation procedure using conventional fluoroscopy (CvF) system (pre-, and post-NFCV implementation; 20 and 11 cases, respectively).I-PVC/VTs were successfully eliminated in 26 patients (87%) in the NFCV group and in 26 (84%) in the CvF group (P = 1.000). The procedure time in the NFCV group was comparable to that in the CvF group (119.8 versus 125.0 minutes, respectively, P = 0.868); the total fluoroscopy time was significantly shorter in the NFCV group (3.3 versus 16.6 minutes, P < 0.001). One patient in the CvF group experienced cardiac tamponade, requiring pericardial drainage. No major complications were encountered in the NFCV group.NFCV system, in conjunction with 3D-EMS, was safe and feasible for i-PVC/VT mapping and ablation. The system contributed to dramatically reduced fluoroscopy time, compared with CvF.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ueda et al. (2018) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: