4.2 Article

Reduced Fluoroscopy During Atrial Fibrillation Ablation: Benefits of Robotic Guided Navigation

Journal

JOURNAL OF CARDIOVASCULAR ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY
Volume 21, Issue 1, Pages 6-12

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL PUBLISHING, INC
DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-8167.2009.01592.x

Keywords

atrial fibrillation; catheter ablation; fluoroscopy; x-ray; robotic navigation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To investigate the influence of RN combined with intuitive 3-dimensional mapping on the fluoroscopy exposure to operator and patient during pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF) in a prospective randomized trial. Methods: Sixty patients were randomly assigned to undergo PVI either using a RN guided (group 1; n = 30, 20 male, 62 +/- 7.7 years) or conventional ablation approach (group 2; n = 30, 14 male, 61 +/- 7.6 years). A 3-dimensional mapping system (NavX (TM)) was used in both groups. Results: Electrical disconnection of the ipsilateral pulmonary veins (PVs) was achieved in all patients. Use of RN significantly lowered the overall fluoroscopy time (9 +/- 3.4 vs 22 +/- 6.5 minutes; P < 0.001) and reduced the operator's fluoroscopy exposure (7 +/- 2.1 vs 22 +/- 6.5 minutes; P < 0.001). The difference in fluoroscopy duration between both groups was most pronounced during the ablation part of the procedure (3 +/- 2.4 vs 17 +/- 6.3 minutes; P < 0.001). The overall procedure duration tended to be prolonged using RN without reaching statistical significance (156 +/- 44.4 vs 134 +/- 12 minutes, P = 0.099). No difference regarding outcome was found during a midterm follow-up of 6 months (AF freedom group 1 = 73% vs 77% in group 2 [P = 0.345]). Conclusion: The use of RN for PVI seems to be effective and significantly reduces overall fluoroscopy time and operator's fluoroscopy exposure without affecting mid-term outcome after 6-month follow-up. (J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol, Vol. 21, pp. 6-12, January 2010).

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available