Key result
Transseptal puncture during catheter ablation was associated with a significantly higher rate of fluoroscopy use compared to patent foramen ovale access (38% vs 7%, p < 0.001).
Why the study?
Electroanatomic mapping systems decrease fluoroscopy needs, but transseptal puncture is commonly performed for left-sided arrhythmias; the study aimed to demonstrate the radiation exposure associated with transseptal puncture.
Does transseptal puncture increase radiation exposure and procedure time compared to patent foramen ovale access in young patients undergoing catheter ablation for left-sided arrhythmias?
Cohort (n=354)
Does transseptal puncture increase radiation exposure and procedure time compared to patent foramen ovale access in young patients undergoing catheter ablation for left-sided arrhythmias?
Absolute Event Rate: 38% vs 7%
p-value: p=<0.001
Transseptal puncture during catheter ablation in young patients is associated with increased procedure time and radiation exposure compared to access via a patent foramen ovale.
May raise radiation concerns in young patients; leaves open optimal access strategy pending prospective data.
BACKGROUND: Electroanatomic mapping systems are increasingly used during ablations to decrease the need for fluoroscopy and therefore radiation exposure. For left-sided arrhythmias, transseptal puncture is a common procedure performed to gain access to the left side of the heart. We aimed to demonstrate the radiation exposure associated with transseptal puncture. METHODS: Data were retrospectively collected from the Catheter Ablation with Reduction or Elimination of Fluoroscopy registry. Patients with left-sided accessory pathway-mediated tachycardia, with a structurally normal heart, who had a transseptal puncture, and were under 22 years of age were included. Those with previous ablations, concurrent diagnostic or interventional catheterisation, and missing data for fluoroscopy use or procedural outcomes were excluded. Patients with a patent foramen ovale who did not have a transseptal puncture were selected as the control group using the same criteria. Procedural outcomes were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: There were 284 patients in the transseptal puncture group and 70 in the patent foramen ovale group. The transseptal puncture group had a significantly higher mean procedure time (158.8 versus 131.4 minutes, p = 0.002), rate of fluoroscopy use (38% versus 7%, p < 0.001), and mean fluoroscopy time (2.4 versus 0.6 minutes, p < 0.001). The acute success and complication rates were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Performing transseptal puncture remains a common reason to utilise fluoroscopy in the era of non-fluoroscopic ablation. Better tools are needed to make non-fluoroscopic transseptal puncture more feasible.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rahman et al. (2022) conducted a cohort in Left-sided accessory pathway-mediated tachycardia (n=354). Transseptal puncture vs. Patent foramen ovale access without transseptal puncture was evaluated on Rate of fluoroscopy use (p=<0.001). Transseptal puncture during catheter ablation was associated with a significantly higher rate of fluoroscopy use compared to patent foramen ovale access (38% vs 7%, p < 0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: