IntroductionCatheter ablations for cardiac arrhythmias are conventionally performed under fluoroscopic guidance. To guide these procedures, zero/minimal fluoroscopy (Z/MF) approaches have become available, using three-dimensional electroanatomical mapping systems. Our aim was to conduct a meta-analysis comparing these two different methods for the treatment of paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia (SVT).MethodsElectronic databases were searched and systematically reviewed for studies comparing procedural parameters and outcomes of conventional, fluoroscopy-guided vs. Z/MF approaches in patients undergoing electrophysiology (EP) procedures for SVTs. The random-effects model was used to derive mean difference (MD) and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence interval (CI).ResultsTwenty-four studies involving 9,074 patients met our inclusion criteria. There was no difference between the groups in terms of acute success rate (RR = 1.00, 95% CI, 0.99–1.01; p = 0.97) and long-term success rate (RR: 1.01, 95% CI, 1.00–1.03; p = 0.13). Compared to the conventional method, zero-and-minimal fluoroscopy (Z/MF) ablation significantly reduced fluoroscopic time [MD: −1.58 min (95% CI, −2.21 to −0.96 min; p < 0.01)] and ablation time [MD: −25.23 s (95% CI: −42.04 to −8.43 s; p < 0.01)]. No difference could be detected between the two groups in terms of the procedure time [MD: 3.06 min (95% CI: −0.97 to 7.08; p = 0.14)] and the number of ablation applications [MD: 0.13 (95% CI: −0.86 to 1.11; p = 0.80)]. The complication rate was 1.59% in the entire study population and did not differ among the groups (RR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.45–1.05; p = 0.08).ConclusionsThe Z/MF approach for the catheter ablation of SVTs is a feasible method that reduces radiation exposure and ablation time without compromising the acute and long-term success or complication rates.

IntroductionCatheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most frequently performed cardiac ablation procedure worldwide. The majority of ablations can now be performed safely with minimal radiation exposure or even without the use of fluoroscopy, thanks to advances in 3-dimensional electroanatomical mapping systems and/or intracardiac echocardiography. The aim of this study was to conduct a meta-analysis to compare the effectiveness of zero fluoroscopy (ZF) versus non-zero fluoroscopy (NZF) strategies for AF ablation procedures.MethodsElectronic databases were searched and systematically reviewed for studies comparing procedural parameters and outcomes of ZF vs. NZF approaches in patients undergoing catheter ablation for AF. We used a random-effects model to derive the mean difference (MD) and risk ratios (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI).ResultsOur meta-analysis included seven studies comprising 1,593 patients. The ZF approach was found to be feasible in 95.1% of patients. Compared to the NZF approach, the ZF approach significantly reduced procedure time [mean difference (MD): −9.11 min (95% CI: −12.93 to −5.30 min; p < 0.01)], fluoroscopy time [MD: −5.21 min (95% CI: −5.51 to −4.91 min; p < 0.01)], and fluoroscopy dose [MD: −3.96 mGy (95% CI: −4.27 to −3.64; p < 0.01)]. However, there was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of total ablation time [MD: −104.26 s (95% CI: −183.37 to −25.14; p = 0.12)]. Furthermore, there was no significant difference in the acute [risk ratio (RR): 1.01, 95% CI: 1.00–1.02; p = 0.72] and long-term success rates (RR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.90–1.03; p = 0.56) between the ZF and NZF methods. The complication rate was 2.76% in the entire study population and did not differ between the groups (RR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.41–2.15; p = 0.89).ConclusionThe ZF approach is a feasible method for AF ablation procedures. It significantly reduces procedure time and radiation exposure without compromising the acute and long-term success rates or complication rates.

IntroductionSteerable sheaths (SSs) are frequently used to improve catheter contact during pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) procedures. A new type of visualizable (by electroanatomical mapping system) SS has become available in clinical treatment.PurposeWe aimed to compare procedural data of visualizable vs. non-visualizable steerable sheath assisted PVI procedures in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF).MethodsIn this single-centre randomized study, we enrolled a total of 100 consecutive patients who underwent PVI due to AF.ResultsA total of 100 patients were randomized into 2 groups (visualizable SS group: 50; non-visualizable SS group: 50). Acute ablation success was 100% and the rate of the first pass isolation were similar (92% vs. 89%; p = 0.88). Using visualizable SS, left atrial (LA) procedure time (53.1 [41.3; 73.1] min vs. 59.5 [47.6; 74.1] min.; p = 0.04), LA fluoroscopy time (0 [0; 0] s vs. 17.5 [5.5; 69.25] s; p < 0.01) and LA fluoroscopy dose (0 [0; 0.27] mGy vs. 0.74 [0.16; 2.34] mGy; p < 0.01) was significantly less, however, there was no difference in the total procedural time (90 ± 35.2 min vs. 99.5 ± 31.8 min; p = 0.13), total fluoroscopy time (184 ± 89 s vs. 193 ± 44 s; p = 0.79), and total fluoroscopy dose (9.12 ± 1.98 mGy vs. 9.97 ± 2.27 mGy; p = 0.76). Compared to standard, non-visualizable SS group, the number of radiofrequency ablations was fewer (69 [58; 80] vs. 79 [73; 86); p < 0.01) as well as total ablation time was reduced (1049 sec. [853; 1175] vs. 1265 sec. [1085; 1441]; p < 0.01) in the visualizable SS cohort. No major complications occurred in either group.ConclusionCompared to the standard, non-visualizable SS, visualizable SS significantly reduces the left atrial procedure time, RF delivery and fluoroscopy exposure without compromising its safety or effectiveness in patients undergoing PVI procedures for AF.