4.2 Article

The use of intracardiac echocardiography catheters in endocardial ablation of cardiac arrhythmia: Meta-analysis of efficiency, effectiveness, and safety outcomes

期刊

JOURNAL OF CARDIOVASCULAR ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY
卷 31, 期 3, 页码 664-673

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jce.14367

关键词

arrhythmia; catheter ablation; ICE; intracardiac echocardiography; intracardiac ultrasound

资金

  1. Johnson and Johnson

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims The optimal use of intracardiac echocardiography (ICE) may reduce fluoroscopy time and procedural complications during endocardial ablation of cardiac arrhythmias. Due to limited evidence in this area, we conducted the first systematic literature review and meta-analysis to evaluate outcomes associated with the use of ICE. Methods and Results Studies reporting the use of ICE during ablation procedures vs without ICE were searched using PubMed/MEDLINE. A meta-analysis was performed on the 19 studies (2186 patients) meeting inclusion criteria, collectively representing a broad range of arrhythmia mechanisms. Use of ICE was associated with significant reductions in fluoroscopy time (Hedges' g -1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.81 to -0.32; P < .01), fluoroscopy dose (Hedges' g -1.27; 95% CI -1.91 to -0.62; P < .01), and procedure time (Hedges' g -0.35; 95% CI -0.64 to -0.05; P = .02) vs ablation without ICE. A 6.95 minute reduction in fluoroscopy time and a 15.2 minute reduction in procedure time was observed between the ICE vs non-ICE groups. These efficiency gains were not associated with any decreased effectiveness or safety. Sensitivity analyses limiting studies to an atrial fibrillation (AF) only population yielded similar results to the main analysis. Conclusion The use of ICE in the ablation of cardiac arrhythmias is associated with significantly lower fluoroscopy time, fluoroscopy dose, and shorter procedure time vs ablation without ICE. These efficiency improvements did not compromise the clinical effectiveness or safety of the procedure.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据