Key result
Three-dimensional mapping-guided transseptal puncture achieved a 100% success rate and significantly reduced mean fluoroscopy time compared to ICE-guided puncture (0.2 vs 1.2 minutes; p<0.001).
Why the study?
Although 3D mapping and ICE are useful for localizing the fossa ovalis and reducing fluoroscopy during transseptal puncture for left atrial ablation, their safety and efficacy had not been directly compared.
Does 3D mapping system-guided transseptal puncture improve procedural efficacy or safety compared to ICE-guided transseptal puncture in patients undergoing left atrial ablation?
Observational (n=216)
Does 3D mapping system-guided transseptal puncture improve procedural efficacy or safety compared to ICE-guided transseptal puncture in patients undergoing left atrial ablation?
Absolute Event Rate: 0.2% vs 1.2%
p-value: p=<0.001
Three-dimensional mapping-guided transseptal puncture is a safe and effective alternative to ICE-guided puncture, significantly reducing fluoroscopy time without compromising procedural success or increasing complications.
3D-guided TSP matches ICE-guided safety and efficacy with less fluoroscopy; leaves open whether it warrants routine adoption pending randomized trials.
INTRODUCTION: Transseptal puncture (TSP) is routinely performed for left atrial ablation procedures. The use of a three-dimensional (3D) mapping system or intracardiac echocardiography (ICE) is useful in localizing the fossa ovalis and reducing fluoroscopy use. We aimed to compare the safety and efficacy between 3D mapping system-guided TSP and ICE-guided TSP techniques. METHODS: We conducted a prospective observational study of patients undergoing TSP for left atrial catheter ablation procedures (mostly atrial fibrillation ablation). Propensity scoring was used to match patients undergoing 3D-guided TSP with patients undergoing ICE-guided TSP. Logistic regression was used to compare the clinical data, procedural data, fluoroscopy time, success rate, and complications between the groups. RESULTS: Sixty-five patients underwent 3D-guided TSP, and 151 propensity score-matched patients underwent ICE-guided TSP. The TSP success rate was 100% in both the 3D-guided and ICE-guided groups. Median needle time was 4.00 min (interquartile range [IQR]: 2.57-5.08) in patients with 3D-guided TSP compared to 4.02 min (IQR: 2.83-6.95) in those with ICE-guided TSP (p = .22). Mean fluoroscopy time was 0.2 min (IQR: 0.1-0.4) in patients with 3D-guided TSP compared to 1.2 min (IQR: 0.7-2.2) in those with ICE-guided TSP (p < .001). There were no complications related to TSP in both group. CONCLUSIONS: Three-dimensional mapping-guided TSP is as safe and effective as ICE-guided TSP without additional cost.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chokesuwattanaskul et al. (2022) conducted an observational in Left atrial catheter ablation (n=216). Three-dimensional (3D) mapping system-guided transseptal puncture vs. Intracardiac echocardiography (ICE)-guided transseptal puncture was evaluated on Mean fluoroscopy time (minutes) (p=<0.001). Three-dimensional mapping-guided transseptal puncture achieved a 100% success rate and significantly reduced mean fluoroscopy time compared to ICE-guided puncture (0.2 vs 1.2 minutes; p<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: