TY - JOUR
T1 - Outcomes and Safety of Fluoroless Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation
AU - Lurie, Antony
AU - Amit, Guy
AU - Divakaramenon, Syamkumar
AU - Acosta, J. Gabriel
AU - Healey, Jeff S.
AU - Wong, Jorge A.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 Canadian Cardiovascular Society
PY - 2021/3/1
Y1 - 2021/3/1
N2 - Background: Intracardiac echocardiography and 3D mapping systems allow catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) to be conducted without fluoroscopy; however, the safety and effectiveness of fluoroless AF ablation are not well defined. Methods: We examined consecutive radiofrequency AF catheter ablations at a large academic teaching hospital from November 2017 to July 2019. Outcomes for fluoroscopy-guided (N = 176) and fluoroless (N = 147) ablations were compared. Cases were designated as fluoroless at the outset of the procedure. Results: Mean age was 59.5 ± 10 years, 66.9% were male, 71.8% had paroxysmal AF, and the mean CHA2DS2-VASc score was 1.7 ± 1.4. There were no differences in patient baseline characteristics. In the fluoroless group, minimal fluoroscopy was used in 17 patients (median, 3 seconds; interquartile range, 1.2-4.8). Mean procedure time, fluoroscopy time, and radiation dose (± standard deviation) were greater in the fluoroscopy group compared with the fluoroless group (194 ± 56 vs 176 ± 46 minutes, P = 0.0021; 10.7 ± 6.6 vs 0.008 ± 0.03 minutes, P < 0.0001; 2759.2 ± 1911 vs 5.4 ± 24 μGy m2, P < 0.0001). In multivariable linear regression models, fluoroless AF ablation was independently associated with reduced procedure times (ß = −16.5 minutes, P = 0.01). Acute procedural success (95.5% vs 98.6%, P = 0.1), complication rates (4.5% vs 2.0%, P = 0.24), and 1-year AF recurrence rates (28.7% vs 27.1%, log-rank P = 0.69) were similar between fluoroscopy and fluoroless groups. Excluding the 17 patients receiving fluoroscopy in the fluoroless group did not impact our results (P = 0.013). After exclusion of redo cases, fluoroless AF ablation was no longer associated with reduced procedure times (ß = −11.4 minutes, P = 0.106). Conclusions: Fluoroless radiofrequency AF ablation had similar effectiveness and safety compared with conventional fluoroscopy-guided AF ablation.
AB - Background: Intracardiac echocardiography and 3D mapping systems allow catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) to be conducted without fluoroscopy; however, the safety and effectiveness of fluoroless AF ablation are not well defined. Methods: We examined consecutive radiofrequency AF catheter ablations at a large academic teaching hospital from November 2017 to July 2019. Outcomes for fluoroscopy-guided (N = 176) and fluoroless (N = 147) ablations were compared. Cases were designated as fluoroless at the outset of the procedure. Results: Mean age was 59.5 ± 10 years, 66.9% were male, 71.8% had paroxysmal AF, and the mean CHA2DS2-VASc score was 1.7 ± 1.4. There were no differences in patient baseline characteristics. In the fluoroless group, minimal fluoroscopy was used in 17 patients (median, 3 seconds; interquartile range, 1.2-4.8). Mean procedure time, fluoroscopy time, and radiation dose (± standard deviation) were greater in the fluoroscopy group compared with the fluoroless group (194 ± 56 vs 176 ± 46 minutes, P = 0.0021; 10.7 ± 6.6 vs 0.008 ± 0.03 minutes, P < 0.0001; 2759.2 ± 1911 vs 5.4 ± 24 μGy m2, P < 0.0001). In multivariable linear regression models, fluoroless AF ablation was independently associated with reduced procedure times (ß = −16.5 minutes, P = 0.01). Acute procedural success (95.5% vs 98.6%, P = 0.1), complication rates (4.5% vs 2.0%, P = 0.24), and 1-year AF recurrence rates (28.7% vs 27.1%, log-rank P = 0.69) were similar between fluoroscopy and fluoroless groups. Excluding the 17 patients receiving fluoroscopy in the fluoroless group did not impact our results (P = 0.013). After exclusion of redo cases, fluoroless AF ablation was no longer associated with reduced procedure times (ß = −11.4 minutes, P = 0.106). Conclusions: Fluoroless radiofrequency AF ablation had similar effectiveness and safety compared with conventional fluoroscopy-guided AF ablation.
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85100415696
U2 - 10.1016/j.cjco.2020.11.002
DO - 10.1016/j.cjco.2020.11.002
M3 - Article
C2 - 33778447
AN - SCOPUS:85100415696
SN - 2589-790X
VL - 3
SP - 303
EP - 310
JO - CJC Open
JF - CJC Open
IS - 3
ER -