BACKGROUND: During catheter ablation procedures, non-radiologic navigation systems may reduce fluoroscopic exposure and energy applications, as well as improve procedural success rates. OBJECTIVE: To examine the impact of a non-radiologic navigation system on ablation procedures in pediatric patients, the procedural characteristics and success rates prior to and following incorporation of the LocaLisa (LL) navigation system into a pediatric electrophysiology laboratory were compared. METHODS: Between January 2000 and April 2005, 246 consecutive patients underwent catheter ablation for either Atrioventricular Reentry Tachycardia AVRT (168) or Atrioventricular Nodal Reentry Tachycardia AVNRT (78). Ablation procedures performed prior to LL (108) were compared to ablation procedures performed using LL (113). The first 25 patients using LL were censored to remove the bias of a learning curve. RESULTS: There was no difference in demographic features between the two groups. Statistically significant decreases were found in the diagnostic (11.4 +/- 6.1 min v 18.8 +/- 9.8 min w/o LL), ablation (5.7 +/- 10.3 vs 18.5 +/- 20.1 min w/o LL) and total (17.2 +/- 12.6 vs 37.3 +/- 21.3 min w/o LL) fluoroscopy times for the LL group, as well as in the total number of energy applications (9.0 +/- 8.5 vs 12.3 +/- 12.2 w/o LL). Success rates were 99.1% w/ LL v 97.2% w/o LL (p = NS). No major complications were observed in either group. CONCLUSIONS: The use of a computer assisted navigation system significantly decreased the diagnostic, ablation, and total fluoroscopy times, as well as the number of energy applications, without affecting procedural success or complication rates. Non-radiologic navigation systems reduce radiation exposure during transcatheter electrophysiologic procedures and thus lower the lifetime radiation cumulative risk, a goal particularly important in children.
BACKGROUND: During catheter ablation procedures, non-radiologic navigation systems may reduce fluoroscopic exposure and energy applications, as well as improve procedural success rates. OBJECTIVE: To examine the impact of a non-radiologic navigation system on ablation procedures in pediatric patients, the procedural characteristics and success rates prior to and following incorporation of the LocaLisa (LL) navigation system into a pediatric electrophysiology laboratory were compared. METHODS: Between January 2000 and April 2005, 246 consecutive patients underwent catheter ablation for either Atrioventricular Reentry Tachycardia AVRT (168) or Atrioventricular Nodal Reentry Tachycardia AVNRT (78). Ablation procedures performed prior to LL (108) were compared to ablation procedures performed using LL (113). The first 25 patients using LL were censored to remove the bias of a learning curve. RESULTS: There was no difference in demographic features between the two groups. Statistically significant decreases were found in the diagnostic (11.4 +/- 6.1 min v 18.8 +/- 9.8 min w/o LL), ablation (5.7 +/- 10.3 vs 18.5 +/- 20.1 min w/o LL) and total (17.2 +/- 12.6 vs 37.3 +/- 21.3 min w/o LL) fluoroscopy times for the LL group, as well as in the total number of energy applications (9.0 +/- 8.5 vs 12.3 +/- 12.2 w/o LL). Success rates were 99.1% w/ LL v 97.2% w/o LL (p = NS). No major complications were observed in either group. CONCLUSIONS: The use of a computer assisted navigation system significantly decreased the diagnostic, ablation, and total fluoroscopy times, as well as the number of energy applications, without affecting procedural success or complication rates. Non-radiologic navigation systems reduce radiation exposure during transcatheter electrophysiologic procedures and thus lower the lifetime radiation cumulative risk, a goal particularly important in children.
Authors: K Perisinakis; J Damilakis; N Theocharopoulos; E Manios; P Vardas; N Gourtsoyiannis Journal: Circulation Date: 2001-07-03 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: L S Rosenthal; M Mahesh; T J Beck; J P Saul; J M Miller; N Kay; L S Klein; S Huang; P Gillette; E Prystowsky; M Carlson; R D Berger; J H Lawrence; P Yong; H Calkins Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 1998-08-15 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: George F Van Hare; Harold Javitz; Dorit Carmelli; J Philip Saul; Ronn E Tanel; Peter S Fischbach; Ronald J Kanter; Michael Schaffer; Ann Dunnigan; Steven Colan; Gerald Serwer Journal: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol Date: 2004-07
Authors: Douglas N Stephens; Uyen T Truong; Amin Nikoozadeh; Omer Oralkan; Chi Hyung Seo; Jonathan Cannata; Aaron Dentinger; Kai Thomenius; Alan de la Rama; Tho Nguyen; Feng Lin; Pierre Khuri-Yakub; Aman Mahajan; Kalyanam Shivkumar; Matt O'Donnell; David J Sahn Journal: J Ultrasound Med Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 2.153
Authors: Michela Casella; Gemma Pelargonio; Antonio Dello Russo; Stefania Riva; Stefano Bartoletti; Pasquale Santangeli; Antonio Scarà; Tommaso Sanna; Riccardo Proietti; Luigi Di Biase; G Joseph Gallinghouse; Maria Lucia Narducci; Luigi Sisto; Fulvio Bellocci; Andrea Natale; Claudio Tondo Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2011-03-02 Impact factor: 1.900
Authors: Douglas Y Mah; Christina Y Miyake; Elizabeth D Sherwin; Amy Walsh; Michael J Anderson; Kara Western; Dominic J Abrams; Mark E Alexander; Frank Cecchin; Edward P Walsh; John K Triedman Journal: Europace Date: 2013-08-08 Impact factor: 5.214
Authors: Gabriel Cismaru; Lucian Muresan; Mihai Puiu; Radu Rosu; Gabriel Gusetu; Dana Pop; Dumitru Zdrenghea Journal: Oxf Med Case Reports Date: 2017-09-04
Authors: Dariusz Rodkiewicz; Edward Koźluk; Agnieszka Piątkowska; Aleksandra Gąsecka; Krzysztof Krzemiński; Grzegorz Opolski Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-03-25 Impact factor: 4.241