4.0 Article

Fluoroless catheter ablation in adults: a single center experience

Journal

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10840-015-0088-z

Keywords

Ablation; Fluoroless; Atrial fibrillation; SVT; Atrial flutter; Ventricular tachycardia; PVC

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Ablation procedures for arrhythmias have increased in frequency and complexity over the last decade. Improvements in technology have allowed for less reliance on fluoroscopy to guide these procedures. Ablation without fluoroscopy has been reported in small cohorts. We report a single center experience of fluoroless ablation after adoption of this technique for all endovascular ablations. Methods This retrospective study evaluated 107 consecutive patients who underwent a catheter ablation procedure for an atrial or ventricular arrhythmias after adoption of a completely fluoroless technique. No fluoroscopy was used in any case. A mapping system was utilized in all cases. Intracardiac echocardiography (ICE) catheters were utilized in 75 of the ablation cases (70.4 %). Of the 107 patients who underwent EP study, three patients did not undergo ablation as they were non-inducible for SVT. Of the remaining 104 patients, 56 patients (53.8 %) underwent ablation for atrial fibrillation, 23 patients (22.1 %) for SVT, 10 patients (9.6 %) for lone atrial flutter, and 16 patients (15.4 %) for a ventricular arrhythmia including PVC, idiopathic VT or ventricular tachycardia. Results Catheters were able to be placed in 100 % of patients without complication. Time to placement in the coronary sinus was 2.1 min +/- 1.4 min. Mean transseptal time was 3.54 min +/- 3 min. Mean procedure time for all ablations was 2 h 6 min +/- 50min. There were no complications in the series of patients. Conclusions Fluoroless ablation is feasible and safe with acceptable procedure times. Adoption of this technique is encouraged in order to eliminate unnecessary risk of fluoroscopy.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available