BACKGROUND: Theoretically, the use of electroanatomical mapping systems may reduce radiation exposure, while three-dimensional rotational atriography (3DATG) may increase exposure. Anatomical representation and image registration using 3DATG are likely to be superior, but the net clinical benefit of either system is unknown. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this prospective randomized two-center study was to compare the procedural and clinical outcome of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) treated bycatheter ablation using either three-dimensional (3D) electroanatomical mapping (Carto) or 3DATG. METHODS:From November 2007 to November 2008, 91 consecutive patients with AF (mean age 58 +/- 10 years; 63% paroxysmal AF, 37% persistent AF) from two centers (Bordeaux and Boston) were randomized to ablation using either 3DATG (44 patients) or Carto (47 patients). RESULTS: Of the 47 left atrial shells acquired with 3DATG, one was uninterpretable. There was no difference in total radiofrequency applications (72 +/- 23 vs. 79 +/- 33 minutes, respectively, P = .296), procedural duration (232 +/- 65 vs. 218 +/- 67 minutes; P = .335), fluroroscopic duration (75 +/- 28 vs. 67 +/- 26 minutes; P = .151), or radiation exposure (71,810 +/- 42,954 vs. 68,009 +/- 38,345 mGy cm(2); P = .719) between procedures performed with 3DATG or Carto. After a mean follow-up of 10 +/- 4 months, there was no difference in clinical outcome using either Carto or 3DATG concerning total arrhythmia recurrence (34% versus 38%; P = .668) or AF recurrence (20% vs. 15%; P = .555). CONCLUSION: Three-dimensional ATG-guided AF ablation has similar radiation exposure and procedural and outcome characteristics compared with Carto-guided ablation. The ease of use and accurate 3D representation of the left atrium make 3DATG a reasonable alternative to conventional 3D electroanatomical mapping systems, however, without advanced mapping functions. Copyright 2010 Heart Rhythm Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Theoretically, the use of electroanatomical mapping systems may reduce radiation exposure, while three-dimensional rotational atriography (3DATG) may increase exposure. Anatomical representation and image registration using 3DATG are likely to be superior, but the net clinical benefit of either system is unknown. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this prospective randomized two-center study was to compare the procedural and clinical outcome of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) treated by catheter ablation using either three-dimensional (3D) electroanatomical mapping (Carto) or 3DATG. METHODS: From November 2007 to November 2008, 91 consecutive patients with AF (mean age 58 +/- 10 years; 63% paroxysmal AF, 37% persistent AF) from two centers (Bordeaux and Boston) were randomized to ablation using either 3DATG (44 patients) or Carto (47 patients). RESULTS: Of the 47 left atrial shells acquired with 3DATG, one was uninterpretable. There was no difference in total radiofrequency applications (72 +/- 23 vs. 79 +/- 33 minutes, respectively, P = .296), procedural duration (232 +/- 65 vs. 218 +/- 67 minutes; P = .335), fluroroscopic duration (75 +/- 28 vs. 67 +/- 26 minutes; P = .151), or radiation exposure (71,810 +/- 42,954 vs. 68,009 +/- 38,345 mGy cm(2); P = .719) between procedures performed with 3DATG or Carto. After a mean follow-up of 10 +/- 4 months, there was no difference in clinical outcome using either Carto or 3DATG concerning total arrhythmia recurrence (34% versus 38%; P = .668) or AF recurrence (20% vs. 15%; P = .555). CONCLUSION: Three-dimensional ATG-guided AF ablation has similar radiation exposure and procedural and outcome characteristics compared with Carto-guided ablation. The ease of use and accurate 3D representation of the left atrium make 3DATG a reasonable alternative to conventional 3D electroanatomical mapping systems, however, without advanced mapping functions. Copyright 2010 Heart Rhythm Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Authors: Anna Degiovanni; Miriam Bortnik; Gabriele Dell'Era; Virginia Bolzani; Eraldo Occhetta; Giorgio Bellomo; Paolo Marino Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2012-04-29 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Lukas H J Lehmkuhl; Konstantin von Aspern; Borek Foldyna; Matthias Grothoff; Stefan Nitzsche; Joerg Kempfert; Ardawan Rastan; Axel Linke; Friedrich W Mohr; Alois Noettling; Thomas Walther; Matthias Gutberlet Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2012-06-19 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Sean D Pokorney; Bradley G Hammill; Laura G Qualls; Benjamin A Steinberg; Lesley H Curtis; Jonathan P Piccini Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2014-05-02 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Hugh Calkins; Karl Heinz Kuck; Riccardo Cappato; Josep Brugada; A John Camm; Shih-Ann Chen; Harry J G Crijns; Ralph J Damiano; D Wyn Davies; John DiMarco; James Edgerton; Kenneth Ellenbogen; Michael D Ezekowitz; David E Haines; Michel Haissaguerre; Gerhard Hindricks; Yoshito Iesaka; Warren Jackman; Jose Jalife; Pierre Jais; Jonathan Kalman; David Keane; Young-Hoon Kim; Paulus Kirchhof; George Klein; Hans Kottkamp; Koichiro Kumagai; Bruce D Lindsay; Moussa Mansour; Francis E Marchlinski; Patrick M McCarthy; J Lluis Mont; Fred Morady; Koonlawee Nademanee; Hiroshi Nakagawa; Andrea Natale; Stanley Nattel; Douglas L Packer; Carlo Pappone; Eric Prystowsky; Antonio Raviele; Vivek Reddy; Jeremy N Ruskin; Richard J Shemin; Hsuan-Ming Tsao; David Wilber Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 1.900
Authors: Rishi Anand; Maxim V Gorev; Hermine Poghosyan; Lindsay Pothier; John Matkins; Gregory Kotler; Sarah Moroz; James Armstrong; Sergei V Nemtsov; Michael V Orlov Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2016-02-10 Impact factor: 1.900