Key result
Zero-fluoroscopy catheter ablation matches conventional fluoroscopy for acute success and arrhythmia recurrence.
Why the study?
Interventional cardiology procedures expose patients and staff to considerable radiation doses, and it is unclear if ionizing radiation exposure can be completely avoided during catheter ablation of supraventricular tachycardia.
Does a zero-fluoroscopy approach using a 3D mapping system reduce radiation exposure without compromising safety and efficacy compared to conventional fluoroscopic guidance in patients undergoing catheter ablation for SVT?
RCT (n=123)
1:1
Does a zero-fluoroscopy approach using a 3D mapping system reduce radiation exposure without compromising safety and efficacy compared to conventional fluoroscopic guidance in patients undergoing catheter ablation for SVT?
Absolute Event Rate: 98.4% vs 98.4%
Zero-fluoroscopy catheter ablation for SVT using a 3D mapping system is as safe and effective as conventional fluoroscopy, while completely eliminating radiation exposure.
May support radiation-free SVT ablation in select cases; leaves open confirmation of safety and efficacy versus fluoroscopy in larger cohorts.
AIMS: Interventional cardiology procedures may expose patients and staff to considerable radiation doses. We aimed to assess whether exposure to ionizing radiation during catheter ablation of supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) can be completely avoided. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this prospective randomized study, patients with SVT (atrioventricular re-entrant tachycardia n = 94, typical atrial flutter n = 29) were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to catheter ablation with conventional fluoroscopic guidance (CF group) or with the EnSite Precision mapping system [zerofluoro (ZF) group]. Acute procedural parameters, increased stochastic risk of cancer incidence and 6-month follow-up data were assessed. Between May 2019 and August 2020, 123 patients were enrolled. Clinical parameters were comparable. Median procedural time was 60.0 and 58.0 min, median fluoroscopy time and estimated median effective dose were 240 s vs. 0 and 0.38 mSv vs. 0 and arrhythmia recurrence was 5% and 7.9% in the CF and ZF groups, respectively. The acute success rate was 98.4% in both groups. No procedure-related complications were reported. At an average age of 55.5 years and median radiation exposure of 0.38 mSv, the estimate of increased incidence was approximately 1 in 14 084. The estimated mortality rate was 1 per 17 857 exposed persons. CONCLUSIONS: The procedural safety and efficacy of the zero-fluoroscopic approach are similar to those of conventional fluoroscopy-based ablation for atrioventricular nodal re-entrant tachycardia and atrial flutter. Under the assumption of low radiation dose, the excessive lifetime risk of malignancy in the CF group due to electrophysiology procedure is reasonably small, whilst totally reduced in zero fluoroscopy procedures.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lehár et al. (2022) conducted an RCT in Supraventricular tachycardia (n=123). Catheter ablation with the EnSite Precision mapping system (zero-fluoroscopy) vs. Catheter ablation with conventional fluoroscopic guidance was evaluated on Acute success rate. Catheter ablation using a zero-fluoroscopy mapping system achieved an acute success rate of 98.4%, identical to conventional fluoroscopy, with similar arrhythmia recurrence (7.9% vs 5%).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: