ECVUE™ technology accurately identified the arrhythmia origin in 95.2% of patients compared to 38.1% with 12-lead ECG algorithms (P=0.001), leading to more targeted ablations but higher radiation.
RCT (n=42)
Does ECVUE™ three-dimensional electrocardiographic imaging improve mapping accuracy and procedural efficiency compared to 12-lead ECG algorithms in patients with ventricular arrhythmias?
ECVUE™ non-invasive 3D mapping improves the accuracy of ventricular arrhythmia localization and procedural efficiency compared to standard 12-lead ECG, though at the cost of increased radiation exposure.
Absolute Event Rate: 95.2% vs 38.1%
p-value: p=0.001
AIMS: ECVUE™ technology, a novel, three-dimensional, non-invasive mapping system, offers a unique arrhythmia characterization and localization. We sought to evaluate the clinical impact of this system in routine clinical mapping and ablation of ventricular arrhythmias (VAs). METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with monomorphic premature ventricular contractions with or without monomorphic ventricular tachycardia were enrolled prospectively and randomized into two groups: ventricular ectopy localization using either 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) algorithms or with ECVUE™, followed by conventional guided ablation. Forty-two patients were enrolled in the study. The ECVUE™ system accurately identified both the chamber and sub-localized the VA origin in 20 of 21 (95.2%) patients. In contrast, using 12-lead ECG algorithms, the chamber was accurately diagnosed in 16 of 21 (76.2%) patients, while the arrhythmia origin in only 8 of 21 (38.1%), (P = 0.001 vs. ECVUE™). Acute success in ablation was achieved in all patients. Regarding the number of radiofrequency-energy applications (in total 2 vs. 4, P = 0.005) in the ECVUE™ arm, ablation was more precise than the ECG group which used standard of care activation and pace mapping-guided ablation. Three months success in ablation was 95.2% for the ECVUE™ and 100% for the ECG group (P = ns). Time to ablation was 35.3 min in the conventional arm and 24.4 min in ECVUE Group, (P = 0.035). The X-ray radiation exposure was 3.21 vs. 0.39 mSv, P = 0.001 for the ECVUE™ group and ECG group. CONCLUSION: ECVUE™ technology offers a clinically useful tool to map VAs with high accuracy and more targeted ablations superior to the body surface ECG but had significantly higher radiation exposure due to computed tomography scan.
Erkapic et al. (Mon,) conducted a rct in Ventricular arrhythmias (n=42). ECVUE™ technology vs. 12-lead ECG algorithms was evaluated on Accurate identification of arrhythmia origin (p=0.001). ECVUE™ technology accurately identified the arrhythmia origin in 95.2% of patients compared to 38.1% with 12-lead ECG algorithms (P=0.001), leading to more targeted ablations but higher radiation.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: