Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
BackgroundLow‐to‐zero fluoroscopic navigation systems lower radiation exposure which improves health outcomes. Conventional x‐ray fluoroscopy (CF) has long been the standard to guide to catheter location for cardiac ablation. With advancements in technology, alternative safety navigation systems have been developed. Three primary modalities commonly utilized are three‐dimensional electroanatomic mapping (3D‐EAM), magnetic navigation system (MNS), and intracardiac echocardiography (ICE), all of which can reduce radiation exposure during the procedure.ObjectiveWe aim to compare the efficacy and safety among ICE, EAM, MNS, and CF in ablation of atrioventricular nodal reentrant tachycardia (AVNRT).MethodsThis is a meta‐analysis consisting of observational studies and randomized controlled trials, which evaluated the performance of navigation systems of catheter ablation in AVNRT patients. Primary endpoint was to access the AVNRT recurrence after the procedure during follow‐up periods. Secondary endpoints were technical success, fluoroscopic time, fluoroscopic dose area product, radiofrequency ablation time, and adverse events. Random‐effect model was applied for pooled estimated effects of included studies.ResultsA total of 21 studies (21 CF, 2 ICE, 9 EAM, 11 MNS) including 1716 patients who underwent catheter ablation for AVNRT treatment were analyzed. Of these, 16 were observational studies and 5 were randomized controlled trials.Primary outcomePoint estimation of AVNRT recurrence showed ICE exhibited a pooled odds ratio (ORs) of 1.06 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.064–17.322), MNS with ORs of 0.51 (95% CI: 0.214–1.219], and EAM with ORs of 0.394 (95% CI: 0.119–1.305) when compared to CF.Secondary outcomesEAM had significant higher technical success with ORs of 2.781 (95% CI: 1.317–5.872) when compared to CF. Regarding fluoroscopy time, EAM showed the lowest time with mean differences (MD) of −10.348 min (95% CI: −13.385 to −7.3101) and P‐score of 0.998. It was followed by MNS with MD of −3.712 min (95% CI: −7.128 to −0.295) and P‐score of 0.586, ICE with MD of −1.150 min (95% CI: −6.963 to 4.662) with a P‐score of 0.294 compared to CF, which has a P‐score of 0.122. There were insignificant adverse events across the procedures.ConclusionAVNRT ablation navigated by low‐to‐zero fluoroscopic navigation systems achieves higher efficacy and comparable safety to conventional fluoroscopywhile also reducing risk of radiation exposure time.
BackgroundLow‐to‐zero fluoroscopic navigation systems lower radiation exposure which improves health outcomes. Conventional x‐ray fluoroscopy (CF) has long been the standard to guide to catheter location for cardiac ablation. With advancements in technology, alternative safety navigation systems have been developed. Three primary modalities commonly utilized are three‐dimensional electroanatomic mapping (3D‐EAM), magnetic navigation system (MNS), and intracardiac echocardiography (ICE), all of which can reduce radiation exposure during the procedure.ObjectiveWe aim to compare the efficacy and safety among ICE, EAM, MNS, and CF in ablation of atrioventricular nodal reentrant tachycardia (AVNRT).MethodsThis is a meta‐analysis consisting of observational studies and randomized controlled trials, which evaluated the performance of navigation systems of catheter ablation in AVNRT patients. Primary endpoint was to access the AVNRT recurrence after the procedure during follow‐up periods. Secondary endpoints were technical success, fluoroscopic time, fluoroscopic dose area product, radiofrequency ablation time, and adverse events. Random‐effect model was applied for pooled estimated effects of included studies.ResultsA total of 21 studies (21 CF, 2 ICE, 9 EAM, 11 MNS) including 1716 patients who underwent catheter ablation for AVNRT treatment were analyzed. Of these, 16 were observational studies and 5 were randomized controlled trials.Primary outcomePoint estimation of AVNRT recurrence showed ICE exhibited a pooled odds ratio (ORs) of 1.06 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.064–17.322), MNS with ORs of 0.51 (95% CI: 0.214–1.219], and EAM with ORs of 0.394 (95% CI: 0.119–1.305) when compared to CF.Secondary outcomesEAM had significant higher technical success with ORs of 2.781 (95% CI: 1.317–5.872) when compared to CF. Regarding fluoroscopy time, EAM showed the lowest time with mean differences (MD) of −10.348 min (95% CI: −13.385 to −7.3101) and P‐score of 0.998. It was followed by MNS with MD of −3.712 min (95% CI: −7.128 to −0.295) and P‐score of 0.586, ICE with MD of −1.150 min (95% CI: −6.963 to 4.662) with a P‐score of 0.294 compared to CF, which has a P‐score of 0.122. There were insignificant adverse events across the procedures.ConclusionAVNRT ablation navigated by low‐to‐zero fluoroscopic navigation systems achieves higher efficacy and comparable safety to conventional fluoroscopywhile also reducing risk of radiation exposure time.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.