Cargando…

Non-fluoroscopic catheter ablation: A randomized trial

BACKGROUND: Catheter ablation provides curative treatment for tachyarrhythmias. Fluoroscopy, the method used for this, presents several risks. The electroanatomical mapping (MEA) presents a three-dimensional image without using X-rays, and may be adjunct to fluoroscopy. OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Pires, Leonardo Martins, Leiria, Tiago Luiz Luz, Kruse, Marcelo Lapa, de Lima, Gustavo Glotz
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6823701/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31238125
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ipej.2019.06.002
_version_ 1783464580833345536
author Pires, Leonardo Martins
Leiria, Tiago Luiz Luz
Kruse, Marcelo Lapa
de Lima, Gustavo Glotz
author_facet Pires, Leonardo Martins
Leiria, Tiago Luiz Luz
Kruse, Marcelo Lapa
de Lima, Gustavo Glotz
author_sort Pires, Leonardo Martins
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Catheter ablation provides curative treatment for tachyarrhythmias. Fluoroscopy, the method used for this, presents several risks. The electroanatomical mapping (MEA) presents a three-dimensional image without using X-rays, and may be adjunct to fluoroscopy. OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the possibility of performing catheter ablation with the exclusive use of electroanatomical mapping (MEA), dispensing with fluoroscopy. We compared the total time of procedure and success rates against the technique using fluoroscopy (RX) with emission of X-rays. METHODS: Randomized, unicentric, uni-blind study of patients referred for tachyarrhythmia ablation. RESULTS: Twelve patients were randomized to the XR group and 11 to the EAM group. The mean age was 48.5 (±12.6) vs 46.3 (±16.6) (P = ns). Success occurred in 11 patients (91.7%) in the RX group and 9 (81.8%) in the MEA group (P = 0.46). The procedure time in minutes was higher in the MEA group than in the RX group (79-47-125min vs 49-30-100min; P = 0.006). The mean fluoroscopy time was 11 ± 9 min versus zero (RX vs MEA: P < 0.001). The mean radiofrequency applications were lower in the RX group against the MEA group (6 ± 3.5 × 13.2 ± 18.2 p < 0.019). There were no complications. CONCLUSION: MEA opened new therapeutic possibilities for patients with arrhythmias, reducing the risk of radiation. In this study, it was possible to demonstrate that it is feasible to perform ablation only with the use of MEA, with similar success with fluoroscopy, at the expense of a longer procedure time.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6823701
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-68237012019-11-07 Non-fluoroscopic catheter ablation: A randomized trial Pires, Leonardo Martins Leiria, Tiago Luiz Luz Kruse, Marcelo Lapa de Lima, Gustavo Glotz Indian Pacing Electrophysiol J Original Article BACKGROUND: Catheter ablation provides curative treatment for tachyarrhythmias. Fluoroscopy, the method used for this, presents several risks. The electroanatomical mapping (MEA) presents a three-dimensional image without using X-rays, and may be adjunct to fluoroscopy. OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the possibility of performing catheter ablation with the exclusive use of electroanatomical mapping (MEA), dispensing with fluoroscopy. We compared the total time of procedure and success rates against the technique using fluoroscopy (RX) with emission of X-rays. METHODS: Randomized, unicentric, uni-blind study of patients referred for tachyarrhythmia ablation. RESULTS: Twelve patients were randomized to the XR group and 11 to the EAM group. The mean age was 48.5 (±12.6) vs 46.3 (±16.6) (P = ns). Success occurred in 11 patients (91.7%) in the RX group and 9 (81.8%) in the MEA group (P = 0.46). The procedure time in minutes was higher in the MEA group than in the RX group (79-47-125min vs 49-30-100min; P = 0.006). The mean fluoroscopy time was 11 ± 9 min versus zero (RX vs MEA: P < 0.001). The mean radiofrequency applications were lower in the RX group against the MEA group (6 ± 3.5 × 13.2 ± 18.2 p < 0.019). There were no complications. CONCLUSION: MEA opened new therapeutic possibilities for patients with arrhythmias, reducing the risk of radiation. In this study, it was possible to demonstrate that it is feasible to perform ablation only with the use of MEA, with similar success with fluoroscopy, at the expense of a longer procedure time. Elsevier 2019-06-22 /pmc/articles/PMC6823701/ /pubmed/31238125 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ipej.2019.06.002 Text en © 2019 Indian Heart Rhythm Society. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Original Article
Pires, Leonardo Martins
Leiria, Tiago Luiz Luz
Kruse, Marcelo Lapa
de Lima, Gustavo Glotz
Non-fluoroscopic catheter ablation: A randomized trial
title Non-fluoroscopic catheter ablation: A randomized trial
title_full Non-fluoroscopic catheter ablation: A randomized trial
title_fullStr Non-fluoroscopic catheter ablation: A randomized trial
title_full_unstemmed Non-fluoroscopic catheter ablation: A randomized trial
title_short Non-fluoroscopic catheter ablation: A randomized trial
title_sort non-fluoroscopic catheter ablation: a randomized trial
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6823701/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31238125
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ipej.2019.06.002
work_keys_str_mv AT piresleonardomartins nonfluoroscopiccatheterablationarandomizedtrial
AT leiriatiagoluizluz nonfluoroscopiccatheterablationarandomizedtrial
AT krusemarcelolapa nonfluoroscopiccatheterablationarandomizedtrial
AT delimagustavoglotz nonfluoroscopiccatheterablationarandomizedtrial