| Literature DB >> 31186001 |
Blerim Luani1, Thomas Rauwolf2, Conrad Genz2, Alexander Schmeißer2, Marcus Wiemer3, Rüdiger C Braun-Dullaeus2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A new zero-fluoroscopy technique for electrophysiology catheter navigation relying on intracardiac echocardiography (ICE) has been recently reported (Ice&ICE trial). We investigated potential differences in efficacy, safety or procedural performance between conventional fluoroscopy- and ICE-guided cryothermal ablation (CA) in symptomatic AVNRT patients.Entities:
Keywords: AVNRT; Catheter ablation; Cryo-ablation; Intracardiac echocardiography; Zero-fluoroscopy
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31186001 PMCID: PMC6560740 DOI: 10.1186/s12947-019-0162-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cardiovasc Ultrasound ISSN: 1476-7120 Impact factor: 2.062
Fig. 1a Surface and endocardial ECG; CS panel showing atrial (1/2–9/10) and ventricular (1/2–7/8) potentials; His panel showing His (7/8, 9/10) and ventricular potentials (1/2–9/10); ablation catheter panel showing slow pathway potentials (black arrows); jagged isoelectric line (Abl 1/2) indicates ongoing cryo-mapping. b Cryo-mapping at the inferior triangle of Koch (ECG reveals uncompromised AV conduction) c Cryoadhesion during midseptal cryo-ablation - tenting of the septal tricuspid valve leaflet (entrapped by ice formation around the tip of the ablation catheter); distance to the His/RV diagnostic catheter on the right can be evaluated (ECG reveals uncompromised AV conduction)
Patients clinical and electrophysiological parameters for both groups
| Zero-fluoroscopy group | Fluoroscopy group | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Patients, | 22 | 25 | |
| Mean age, years | 54.1 ± 11 | 59.8 ± 12 | < 0.05 |
| Female, % ( | 72.7 (16) | 68.0 (17) | n.s. |
| Fluoroscopy time in min. | 0 | 11.2 ± 9.0 | < 0.05 |
| Radiation dose in Gycm2 | 0 | 20.3 ± 16.2 | < 0.05 |
| AVNRT type, % (n) | |||
| slow/fast | 86.4 (19) | 88.0 (22) | n.s. |
| slow/slow | 9.1 (2) | 0 | |
| fast/slow | 4.5 (1) | 3 | |
| Orciprenaline needed for induction, % (n) | 54.5 (12) | 52.0 (13) | n.s. |
| AVNRT cycle length, ms | 357 ± 55 | 349 ± 62 | n.s. |
| PQ interval baseline, ms | 153 ± 21 | 150 ± 19 | n.s. |
| PQ interval post-abl., ms | 152 ± 22 | 151 ± 20 | n.s. |
| Antegrade Wenckebach baseline, ms | 328 ± 36 | 324 ± 42 | n.s. |
| Antegrade Wenckebach post-abl., ms | 314 ± 38 | 326 ± 40 | n.s. |
| DAVNPa at baseline, % (n) | 90.1 (20) | 92.0 (23) | n.s. |
| DAVNP post-ablation, % (n) | 45.5 (10) | 44.0 (11) | n.s. |
aDAVNP dual atrio-ventricular node physiology (= AH or VA jump of ≥50 ms)
Fig. 2Different procedure steps for each patient in the zero-fluoroscopy group
Fig. 3Duration of different procedure steps for both groups