3.8 Article

Italian Ablation Registry 2020. Italian Association of Arrhythmology and Cardiostimulation

Journal

GIORNALE ITALIANO DI CARDIOLOGIA
Volume 24, Issue 3, Pages 241-244

Publisher

PENSIERO SCIENTIFICO EDITORE

Keywords

Arrhythmias; Catheter ablation; Registry

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This report summarizes the findings of the 2020 Italian Catheter Ablation Registry, which showed that atrial fibrillation is the most frequently treated arrhythmia with an increasing use of 3D mapping system and near-zero fluoroscopic approach.
Background. This report describes the findings of the 2020 Italian Catheter Ablation Registry of the Italian Association of Arrhythmology and Cardiac Pacing (AIAC). Methods. Data collection was retrospective. A standardized questionnaire was completed by each of the participating centers. Results. A total of 10 378 ablation procedures were performed by 66 institutions. Most centers (70%) have an electrophysiology laboratory, and 23% a hybrid cardiac surgery laboratory. All centers have a 3D mapping system. The median number of electrophysiologists and nurses involved in the electrophysiology laboratory was 3.5 and 3, respectively. An electrophysiology technician was involved in 35% of all centers. In 88.2% of cases, catheter ablation was performed for supraventricular arrhythmias; the most frequently treated arrhythmia was atrial fibrillation (39.4%), followed by atrioventricular nodal reentrant tachycardia (18.6%), and common atrial flutter (10.6%). In 72.9% of patients, catheter ablation was performed using a 3D mapping system, with a near-zero fluoroscopic approach in 37.7% of all patients. Conclusions. The 2020 Italian Catheter Ablation Registry confirmed that the electrophysiology activity was markedly affected by the COVID-19 pandemic; atrial fibrillation is the most frequently treated arrhythmia with an increasing number of procedures performed with a 3D mapping system and a near-zero approach.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available