Key result
Extra-cavity LV image registration via the aortic root linked to ~13-minute shorter procedure time vs ICE.
Why the study?
Computed tomography image integration is limited in left ventricular ablation due to inadequate accuracy of registration, motivating investigation of extra-cavity LV image registration via the coronary cusp.
Does extra-cavity image registration via the aortic root provide accurate and feasible left ventricular mapping and ablation?
Cohort (n=89)
No
Does extra-cavity image registration via the aortic root provide accurate and feasible left ventricular mapping and ablation?
Absolute Event Rate: 61.2% vs 74.5%
p-value: p=<0.001
Extra-cavity image registration via the aortic root provides accurate left ventricular anatomy integration and significantly reduces procedure time during mapping and ablation.
May reduce LV ablation procedure time; hypothesis-generating and requires randomized confirmation before adoption.
BACKGROUND: Computed tomography (CT) image integration is of limited use in left ventricular (LV) ablation due to inadequate accuracy of registration. The current study aimed to investigate the accuracy and feasibility of extra-cavity LV image registration via the coronary cusp. METHODS: Consecutive patients were enrolled as the validation group (n = 41) and feasibility group (n = 48). After extra-cavity registration via the aortic root, the LV anatomy derived from CT image was activated and moved into real space. Accuracy of LV anatomy via this registration method was verified by intracardiac echocardiography reconstruction in the validation group and tested further in the feasibility group via measuring the location differences (<3 mm) and volume difference (<8 mL). RESULTS: In validation group, the LV volume of CT image and ICE map were comparable (113.6 ± 15.5 mL vs. 109.0 ± 15.3 mL, P =.27), and the location difference was 3.1 ± 1.1 mm at LV summit, 1.8 ± 0.9 mm at the free wall, and 1.8 ± 0.7 mm at the LV apex. There was a mean of 2.9 ± 1.2 mm and 3.0 ± 1.0 mm length difference in anterior PM and posterior PM, the position difference of the PM's base was 2.8 ± 0.9 mm for anterior PM and 2.2 ± 0.9 mm for posterior PM. In feasibility group, the distance differences of LV summit, LV septum, LV apex, and LV free averaged 1.8 ± 0.8 mm, 1.5 ± 0.7 mm, 1.4 ± 0.6 mm, 1.3 ± 0.7 mm, respectively. Compared with validation group, acute success (100% vs. 96.5%, P =.51), complications rate (4.9% vs. 2.0%, P = 0.59) and fluoroscopic time (1.6 ± 1.1 vs. 1.9 ± 1.6 minutes, P =.30) exhibited no significant difference, but was significantly reduced with procedure time (74.5 ± 8.1 vs. 61.2 ± 9.5 minutes, P <.001) with CT image registration only. CONCLUSION: LV mapping and ablation could be successfully achieved by extra-cavity registration via coronary cusp without needing positions within LV beforehand.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shaolong Li (2024) conducted a cohort in Ventricular arrhythmias requiring left ventricular mapping and ablation (n=89). Extra-cavity left ventricular image registration via the aortic root (CT image registration only) vs. Intracardiac echocardiography (ICE)-guided left ventricular reconstruction was evaluated on Procedure time (minutes) (p=<0.001). Extra-cavity left ventricular image registration via the aortic root successfully guided mapping and ablation, significantly reducing procedure time to 61.2 minutes compared to 74.5 minutes with ICE guidance.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: