Why the study?
Does the use of the Achieve catheter reduce procedure duration and radiation exposure in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation undergoing pulmonary vein cryoablation?
Does the use of the Achieve catheter reduce procedure duration and radiation exposure in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation undergoing pulmonary vein cryoablation?
The use of a dedicated inner lumen mapping catheter (Achieve) during pulmonary vein cryoablation significantly reduces procedure duration and fluoroscopy time compared to a standard single transseptal approach.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May support procedural efficiency with Achieve catheter in cryoablation; leaves open confirmation in randomized trials.
BACKGROUND: The Achieve catheter (AC; Medtronic-CryoCath, Pointe-Claire, Canada) is a circular mapping catheter introduced through the lumen of the cryoballoon (CB) catheter which is safe and effective to both navigate the CB to the pulmonary veins (PV) and allow PV potential recording during PV cryoablation. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of the use of the AC on procedural outcomes. METHODS: Sixteen consecutive patients (14 men) underwent AC-guided PV isolation (PVI) for drug-refractory paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF; AC group). Clinical and procedural data of these patients were compared to those obtained from 16 consecutive patients who had undergone PVI for paroxysmal AF with the regular "single transseptal" approach (control group). RESULTS: Clinical characteristics of patients enrolled in both groups did not differ significantly. In the AC group, 64 PVs were targeted using a single 28-mm (n = 13) or 23-mm (n = 3) CB catheter with PVI achieved in 62 PVs (97%). In the control group, 66 PVs were targeted using a single 28-mm (n = 12) or 23-mm (n = 4) CB catheter with PVI achieved in 62 PVs (94%), (P = non-significant for CB size and PVI rate). Procedure duration and fluoroscopy time were significantly reduced in AC group compared to control group (96.6 ± 26 minutes vs 125.9 ± 25 minutes, P = 0.003 and 24.4 ± 10 minutes vs 32.6 ± 11 minutes, P = 0.04, respectively). CONCLUSION: The use of the AC significantly reduced procedure duration and radiation exposure during PVI with the CB technique.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Peyrol et al. (2012) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: