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.
Pulmonary vein isolation using radiofrequency ablation is the most common method of catheter treatment for atrial fibrillation. Performing this procedure involves the use of X-ray radiation, which at certain stages of the procedure is an indispensable method for navigation and visualization of intracardiac structures. Approaches to minimize X-ray exposure during catheter interventions are attracting increased attention of the electrophysiology community due to the potential risks of adverse effects of ionizing radiation on patients and medical personnel. The aim. To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of performing the pulmonary vein isolation procedure with the intention to minimize X-ray exposure of patients and medical personnel. Materials and methods. Forty-three patients with various forms of atrial fibrillation were selected for the study: 28(65%) with paroxysmal and 15 (35%) with persistent forms. All the patients underwent pulmonary vein isolation usingcatheter radiofrequency ablation with the intention to minimize X-ray exposure at the National Amosov Institute of Cardiovascular Surgery in the period from June 2023 to April 2024. Results. In all 43 patients it was possible to electrically isolate all the veins. Catheter ablation of the cavotricuspidisthmus was performed in 5 (31.2%) patients from group A (“Zero-fluoro”), 7 (33.3%) from group B (“Near Zero-fluoro”) and 3 (50%) from group C (“Non Zero-fluoro”) (p = 0.696). Intraoperative reconnection of the pulmonary veins with the left atrium was observed in 6 (37.5%) patients of group A, 11 (52.3%) of group B, and 4 (66%) of group C (p = 0.429). X-ray time for transseptal puncture did not differ between groups A and B (3.56 ± 2.37 vs. 3.69 ± 2.3 min., p = 0.532), however, X-ray time for pulmonary vein isolation in group A was significantly less than that in group B (0.27 ± 0.13 vs. 1.96 ± 1.21 min., p < 0.001). The total time in the left atrium was not statistically different between these two groups (81.33 ± 22.32 vs. 98.6 ± 29.83 min., p = 0.106). In group C (“Non Zero-fluoro”), the aforementioned parameters were not recorded. Total dose area product (DAP) and total radiation dose, as well as total X-ray time and total procedure time, were significantly lower when using the ionizing exposure minimization approach. DAP and total radiation dose in group A were the lowest (7.29 ± 5.16 Gy/cm2 and 76.62 ± 70.82 mGy, respectively) and significantly differed from those in group C (107.67 ± 97.59 Gy/cm2 and 882.32 ± 868.62 mGy, p < 0.001 and p = 0.001, respectively). No intraoperative complications were observed in the studied sample. Conclusions. Minimizing X-ray exposure using modern navigation systems during pulmonary vein isolation using catheter radiofrequency ablation is not associated with increased intraprocedural complications in patients with paroxysmal and persistent atrial fibrillation. This approach allows you to significantly lower total DAP and the radiation dosewithout increasing the time of performing the pulmonary vein isolation procedure.
Background: Atrioventricular node (AVN) ablation is an effective treatment for atrial fibrillation (AF) with uncontrolled ventricular rates despite maximal pharmacological treatment. Intracardiac echocardiography (ICE) can help with visualizing structures, positioning catheters, and guiding the ablation procedure. We compared only fluoroscopy-guided and ICE-guided AVN ablation regarding patients with permanent AF. Methods: Sixty-two consecutive patients underwent AVN ablation were enrolled in our retrospective single-center study (ICE group: 28 patients, Standard group: 34 patients). Procedural data, acute and long-term success rate, and complications were analyzed. Results: ICE guidance for AVN ablation significantly reduced fluoroscopy time (0.30 [0.06; 0.85] min vs. 7.95 [3.23; 6.59] min, p < 0.01), first-to-last ablation time (4 [2; 16.3] min vs. 26.5 [2.3; 72.5] min, p = 0.02), and in-procedure time (40 [34; 55] min vs. 60 [45; 110], p = 0.02). There was no difference in either the total ablation time (199 [91; 436] s vs. 294 [110; 659] s, p = 0.22) or in total ablation energy (8272 [4004; 14,651] J vs. 6065 [2708; 16,406] J, p = 0.28). The acute success rate was similar (ICE: 100% vs. Standard: 94%, p = 0.49) between the groups. Conclusions: In our retrospective trial, ICE-guided AVN ablation reduced fluoroscopy time, procedure time, and first-to-last ablation time. There was no difference in ablation time, total ablation energy, acute and long-term success, and complication rate.
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.