Electroanatomic mapping was superior to noncontact mapping for successful arrhythmia mapping late after the Fontan procedure (superior in 58% vs inferior in 19%; P=0.044).
Observational (n=26)
Does electroanatomic mapping improve the identification of scar and arrhythmia compared to noncontact mapping in patients late after the Fontan procedure?
Electroanatomic mapping is superior to noncontact mapping for identifying scar and arrhythmias late after the Fontan procedure, as noncontact mapping loses accuracy at distances >40 mm from the array.
Absolute Event Rate: 58% vs 19%
p-value: p=0.044
BACKGROUND: The right atrium late after the Fontan procedure is characterized by multiple complex arrhythmia circuits. We performed simultaneous electroanatomic and noncontact mapping to assess the accuracy of both systems to identify scar and arrhythmia. METHODS AND RESULTS: Mapping was performed in 26 patients aged 26.8+/-8.9 years, 18.7+/-4.4 years after Fontan surgery. The area and site of abnormal endocardium defined by electroanatomic mapping (bipolar contact electrogram 40 mm from the multielectrode array. Successful arrhythmia mapping by electroanatomic versus noncontact mapping was superior in 15 patients (58%), the same in 6 (23%), and inferior in 5 (19%; P=0.044). CONCLUSIONS: Electroanatomic mapping is the superior modality for arrhythmia mapping late after the Fontan procedure. Noncontact mapping is limited by a significant reduction in reconstructed electrogram correlation, timing, and amplitude >40 mm from the multielectrode array and cannot accurately define areas of scar and low-voltage endocardium.
Abrams et al. (Tue,) conducted a observational in Arrhythmia late after the Fontan procedure (n=26). Electroanatomic mapping vs. Noncontact mapping was evaluated on Successful arrhythmia mapping (p=0.044). Electroanatomic mapping was superior to noncontact mapping for successful arrhythmia mapping late after the Fontan procedure (superior in 58% vs inferior in 19%; P=0.044).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: