Key result
Ultrasound-guided AF ablation shows non-inferior clinical success vs CT guidance while eliminating ~9 mSv radiation.
Why the study?
Does an ultrasound-guided approach reduce radiation exposure compared to CT-guided imaging in patients undergoing atrial fibrillation ablation?
Case-Control (n=20)
Does an ultrasound-guided approach reduce radiation exposure compared to CT-guided imaging in patients undergoing atrial fibrillation ablation?
Absolute Event Rate: 151% vs 174%
p-value: p=0.6
Intracardiac ultrasound-guided AF ablation eliminates the need for pre-procedural CT imaging, significantly reducing ionizing radiation exposure without compromising clinical success.
May support ultrasound guidance to avoid radiation in AF ablation; leaves open randomized confirmation.
Radiation exposure with cardiac interventional procedures is an emerging concern. Patients receiving radiofrequency ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) still routinely undergo pre-ablation computed tomography (CT) scans for definition of left atrial and pulmonary vein anatomy, as well as creation of a surrogate geometry. In an effort to decrease ionizing radiation associated with AF ablation, an ultrasound-guided surrogate geometry approach is proposed as an alternative to routine CT imaging. Ten patients underwent AF ablation using intracardiac ultrasound for the creation of a surrogate left atrial geometry (CartoSound, Biosense Webster, CA); and ten control-cases who had conventional CT-guided imaging (CartoMerge, Biosense Webster, CA) were matched for age, gender, and type of catheter ablation. Sources of radiation included 1) intraprocedural fluoroscopy (CartoSound: 151 ± 43 mGray*cm^2, CartoMerge: 174 ± 130 mGray*cm^2; p=0.6) and 2) CT ionizing radiation (CartoSound: 0 mSv, CartoMerge 9.4 ± 2.3 mSv/CT scan.) When comparing clinical success rates after a trial of previously ineffective anti-arrhythmic drugs, ultrasound-guided AF ablation was non-inferior to a CT-guided approach. This potentially obviates the need for CT-guided imaging, therefore reducing doses of ionizing radiation by nearly 10 mSv per AF catheter ablation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bhatia et al. (2010) conducted a case-control in Atrial fibrillation (n=20). Ultrasound-guided surrogate geometry approach (intracardiac ultrasound) vs. Conventional CT-guided imaging was evaluated on Intraprocedural fluoroscopy radiation (mGray*cm^2) (p=0.6). Ultrasound-guided atrial fibrillation ablation was non-inferior to a CT-guided approach for clinical success, while eliminating CT ionizing radiation (0 vs 9.4 mSv).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: