BACKGROUND: Three-dimensional electroanatomic mapping (EAM) systems reduce radiation exposure when radio frequency catheter ablation (RFCA) procedures are performed by well-trained senior operators. Given the steep learning curve associated with complex RFCA, trainees and their mentors must rely on multiple imaging modalities to maximize safety and success, which might increase procedure and fluoroscopy times. The objective of the present study is to determine if 3-D EAM (CARTO and ESI-NavX) improves procedural outcomes (fluoroscopy time, radio frequency time, procedure duration, complication, and success rates) during CA procedures as compared to fluoroscopically guided conventional mapping alone in an academic teaching hospital. METHODS: We analyzed a total of 1070 consecutive RFCA procedures over an 8-year period for fluoroscopic time stratified by ablation target and mapping system. Multivariate logistic regression and adjusted odds ratios were calculated for each variable. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences in acute success rates were noted between conventional and 3-D mapping cases [CARTO (p = 0.68) or ESI-NavX (p = 0.20)]. Moreover, complication rates were also not significantly different between CARTO (p = 0.23) and ESI-NavX (p = 0.53) when compared to conventional mapping. Procedure, radio frequency, and fluoroscopy times were significantly longer with CARTO and ESI-NavX versus conventional mapping [fluoroscopy time: CARTO, 28.3 min; ESI, 28.5 min; and conventional, 24.3 min; p < 0.001)]. CONCLUSIONS: The use of 3-D EAM systems during teaching cases significantly increases radiation exposure when compared with conventional mapping. These findings suggest a need to develop alternative training strategies that enhance confidence and safety during catheter manipulation and allow for reduced fluoroscopy and procedure times during RFCA.
BACKGROUND: Three-dimensional electroanatomic mapping (EAM) systems reduce radiation exposure when radio frequency catheter ablation (RFCA) procedures are performed by well-trained senior operators. Given the steep learning curve associated with complex RFCA, trainees and their mentors must rely on multiple imaging modalities to maximize safety and success, which might increase procedure and fluoroscopy times. The objective of the present study is to determine if 3-D EAM (CARTO and ESI-NavX) improves procedural outcomes (fluoroscopy time, radio frequency time, procedure duration, complication, and success rates) during CA procedures as compared to fluoroscopically guided conventional mapping alone in an academic teaching hospital. METHODS: We analyzed a total of 1070 consecutive RFCA procedures over an 8-year period for fluoroscopic time stratified by ablation target and mapping system. Multivariate logistic regression and adjusted odds ratios were calculated for each variable. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences in acute success rates were noted between conventional and 3-D mapping cases [CARTO (p = 0.68) or ESI-NavX (p = 0.20)]. Moreover, complication rates were also not significantly different between CARTO (p = 0.23) and ESI-NavX (p = 0.53) when compared to conventional mapping. Procedure, radio frequency, and fluoroscopy times were significantly longer with CARTO and ESI-NavX versus conventional mapping [fluoroscopy time: CARTO, 28.3 min; ESI, 28.5 min; and conventional, 24.3 min; p < 0.001)]. CONCLUSIONS: The use of 3-D EAM systems during teaching cases significantly increases radiation exposure when compared with conventional mapping. These findings suggest a need to develop alternative training strategies that enhance confidence and safety during catheter manipulation and allow for reduced fluoroscopy and procedure times during RFCA.
Entities:
Keywords:
Conventional mapping; Fluoroscopy time; Radio frequency ablation; Teaching program; Tridimensional mapping
Authors: F H Wittkampf; E F Wever; R Derksen; A A Wilde; H Ramanna; R N Hauer; E O Robles de Medina Journal: Circulation Date: 1999-03-16 Impact factor: 29.690
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: John D Ferguson; Adam Helms; J Michael Mangrum; Srijoy Mahapatra; Pamela Mason; Ken Bilchick; George McDaniel; David Wiggins; John P DiMarco Journal: Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol Date: 2009-12
Authors: D L Coggins; R J Lee; J Sweeney; W W Chein; G Van Hare; L Epstein; R Gonzalez; J C Griffin; M D Lesh; M M Scheinman Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 1994-05 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Mohammed Shurrab; Avishag Laish-Farkash; Ilan Lashevsky; Florence Morriello; Sheldon Michael Singh; Richard John Schilling; Harindra Channa Wijeysundera; Arnold Pinter; David Newman; Eugene Crystal Journal: Scand Cardiovasc J Date: 2013-05-27 Impact factor: 1.589
Authors: Jonathan C Hsu; Douglas Darden; Benedict M Glover; B Judson Colley; Christian Steinberg; Bernard Thibault; Coty Jewell; Michael Bernard; Paul B Tabereaux; Usman Siddiqui; Jingyun Li; Eric E Horvath; Daniel Cooper; David Lin Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2022-05-10 Impact factor: 1.759