Key result
A 3D non-fluoroscopic mapping system significantly reduced overall fluoroscopy time compared to conventional fluoroscopy (8.8 vs 29.7 minutes; P<0.001) during atrial flutter ablation.
Why the study?
Does a 3D non-fluoroscopic mapping system reduce fluoroscopy time and procedure duration in patients undergoing typical atrial flutter ablation compared to conventional fluoroscopy?
Population
40 patients undergoing cavo-tricuspid isthmus ablation for typical counterclockwise atrial flutter with…
Comparison
Three-dimensional, non-fluoroscopic mapping system vs Conventional fluoroscopy
Design
Cohort
Authors
Loading...
May lower radiation exposure during atrial flutter ablation; leaves open whether randomized trials confirm benefits on procedure duration or outcomes.
Cohort (n=40)
Does a 3D non-fluoroscopic mapping system reduce fluoroscopy time and procedure duration in patients undergoing typical atrial flutter ablation compared to conventional fluoroscopy?
Absolute Event Rate: 8.8% vs 29.7%
p-value: p=<0.001
The use of a 3D non-fluoroscopic mapping system significantly reduces radiation exposure, ablation time, and the number of RF applications during typical atrial flutter ablation.
Verbeet et al. (2005) conducted a cohort in typical counterclockwise atrial flutter (n=40). 3D non-fluoroscopic mapping system vs. conventional fluoroscopy was evaluated on overall fluoroscopy time (minutes) (p=<0.001). A 3D non-fluoroscopic mapping system significantly reduced overall fluoroscopy time compared to conventional fluoroscopy (8.8 vs 29.7 minutes; P<0.001) during atrial flutter ablation.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: