Marcus Wieczorek1,2, Sharam Tajtaraghi3, Reinhard Hoeltgen3. 1. School of Medicine, Witten/Herdecke University, Witten, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany. drmwieczorek@t-online.de. 2. Department of Cardiology and Electrophysiology, St. Agnes-Hospital Bocholt, Barloer Weg 125, 46397, Bocholt, Germany. drmwieczorek@t-online.de. 3. Department of Cardiology and Electrophysiology, St. Agnes-Hospital Bocholt, Barloer Weg 125, 46397, Bocholt, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Conventional catheter ablation of right-sided accessory pathways (RAPs) can be challenging. OBJECTIVE: To determine if a subvalvular catheter approach for RAPs targeting the ventricular insertion site, as on the left side, can improve catheter stability and tissue contact and thus increase acute and chronic ablation success rates. METHODS AND RESULTS: We retrospectively compared 22 patients (pts) with conventional catheter ablation of RAPs (group 1) with 9 consecutive pts (group 2) undergoing catheter ablation of a RAP using a subvalvular catheter approach targeting the ventricular site of AP. Ablation failed in 2/22 group 1 vs 0/9 group 2 pts (ns) and recurrences of AP conduction were registered in 4/19 group 1 vs 1/9 group 2 pts (ns) during follow-up. Significant shorter values were found in group 2 pts compared with group 1 for number of RF applications (3.6 ± 1.6 vs 8.2 ± 4.3), AP block time (6.2 ± 2.4 vs 9.2 ± 3.9 min), fluoroscopy time (17.2 ± 6.9 vs 25.6 ± 10.3 min), and procedure time (70.8 ± 23.9 vs 138 ± 44.4 min). There were no procedure related complications. CONCLUSION: Catheter ablation of RAPs using a subvalvular approach seems as effective and safe compared with conventional ablation but with reduced procedure time and radiation exposure and might be at least considered an alternative after failed conventional catheter ablation of RAPs.
BACKGROUND: Conventional catheter ablation of right-sided accessory pathways (RAPs) can be challenging. OBJECTIVE: To determine if a subvalvular catheter approach for RAPs targeting the ventricular insertion site, as on the left side, can improve catheter stability and tissue contact and thus increase acute and chronic ablation success rates. METHODS AND RESULTS: We retrospectively compared 22 patients (pts) with conventional catheter ablation of RAPs (group 1) with 9 consecutive pts (group 2) undergoing catheter ablation of a RAP using a subvalvular catheter approach targeting the ventricular site of AP. Ablation failed in 2/22 group 1 vs 0/9 group 2 pts (ns) and recurrences of AP conduction were registered in 4/19 group 1 vs 1/9 group 2 pts (ns) during follow-up. Significant shorter values were found in group 2 pts compared with group 1 for number of RF applications (3.6 ± 1.6 vs 8.2 ± 4.3), AP block time (6.2 ± 2.4 vs 9.2 ± 3.9 min), fluoroscopy time (17.2 ± 6.9 vs 25.6 ± 10.3 min), and procedure time (70.8 ± 23.9 vs 138 ± 44.4 min). There were no procedure related complications. CONCLUSION: Catheter ablation of RAPs using a subvalvular approach seems as effective and safe compared with conventional ablation but with reduced procedure time and radiation exposure and might be at least considered an alternative after failed conventional catheter ablation of RAPs.
Authors: T Yamane; P Jaïs; D C Shah; M Hocini; J T Peng; I Deisenhofer; J Clémenty; M Haïssaguerre Journal: Circulation Date: 2000-11-21 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: K Otomo; M D Gonzalez; K J Beckman; H Nakagawa; A E Becker; N Shah; K Matsudaira; Z Wang; R Lazzara; W M Jackman Journal: Circulation Date: 2001-07-31 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Tom Wong; Wajid Hussain; Vias Markides; Diana A Gorog; Ian Wright; Nicholas S Peters; D Wyn Davies Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2006-11-18 Impact factor: 1.900
Authors: W M Jackman; X Z Wang; K J Friday; C A Roman; K P Moulton; K J Beckman; J H McClelland; N Twidale; H A Hazlitt; M I Prior Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1991-06-06 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: J J Langberg; H Calkins; Y N Kim; J Sousa; R el-Atassi; A Leon; M Borganelli; S J Kalbfleisch; F Morady Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 1992-06 Impact factor: 24.094