Liu Guang-An, Shao Bo, Wu Wanglong, Zhou Linxiao, Cui Jing, Chen Wenxue, Zhang Ruoxi, Liu Feng
Department of Cardiology, Suzhou Kowloon Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Suzhou, China.
Front Cardiovasc Med. 2024 Nov 21;11:1510889. doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2024.1510889. eCollection 2024.
In atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation, fluoroscopy has been a standard tool for catheter guidance. However, the combination of electroanatomic mapping systems (EAMs) and intracardiac echocardiography (ICE) now allows for minimal or zero-fluoroscopy procedures. Concurrently, high-power short-duration (HPSD) ablation has emerged as a promising technique, offering enhanced resistive heating while reducing conductive heating. This approach potentially improves both safety and efficacy. Despite these advancements, there is a lack of comprehensive clinical data on the safety and effectiveness of HPSD ablation when used in conjunction with ICE-guided zero-fluoroscopy procedures.
To compare two different ablation strategies-high-power short-duration (HPSD) and low-power long-duration (LPLD)-both utilizing intracardiac echocardiography (ICE)-guided zero-fluoroscopy in the context of atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation.
This retrospective study included 173 consecutive patients with AF who underwent ICE-guided zero-fluoroscopy ablation. Patients were divided into two groups: HPSD and LPLD. All procedures were conducted using an EAM system with ICE guidance. Both groups underwent routine pulmonary vein isolation (PVI), with additional linear ablations performed for persistent AF when necessary. We compared treatment outcomes and the incidence of complications between the two groups.
All procedures were successfully completed under ICE-guided zero-fluoroscopy, establishing a feasible and reliable workflow. The procedure and ablation times were significantly shorter in the HPSD group compared to the LPLD group. At one-year follow-up, sinus rhythm was maintained in 77 patients in the HPSD group and 74 patients in the LPLD group, with no significant difference between the two group. Postoperative complications occurred in 5 patients in the HPSD group and 3 patients in the LPLD group. Importantly, there were no major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) in either group.
A zero-fluoroscopy workflow utilizing an EAM system combined with ICE appears to be both feasible and safe for ablation in AF patients. In patients undergoing ICE-guided zero-fluoroscopy ablation, the HPSD strategy is comparable to LPLD ablation in effectiveness while offering the benefit of shorter procedure and ablation times.
在心房颤动(房颤)消融术中,荧光透视一直是导管引导的标准工具。然而,电解剖标测系统(EAM)与心腔内超声心动图(ICE)的结合,如今使得最低限度或零荧光透视手术成为可能。与此同时,高功率短持续时间(HPSD)消融术已成为一种有前景的技术,它在减少传导性加热的同时增强了电阻性加热。这种方法有可能提高安全性和有效性。尽管有这些进展,但关于HPSD消融术与ICE引导的零荧光透视手术联合使用时的安全性和有效性,缺乏全面的临床数据。
比较两种不同的消融策略——高功率短持续时间(HPSD)和低功率长持续时间(LPLD)——在心房颤动(房颤)消融术中均采用心腔内超声心动图(ICE)引导的零荧光透视。
这项回顾性研究纳入了173例连续接受ICE引导的零荧光透视消融术的房颤患者。患者被分为两组:HPSD组和LPLD组。所有手术均在EAM系统和ICE引导下进行。两组均常规进行肺静脉隔离(PVI),必要时对持续性房颤进行额外的线性消融。我们比较了两组的治疗结果和并发症发生率。
所有手术均在ICE引导的零荧光透视下成功完成,建立了一种可行且可靠的工作流程。与LPLD组相比,HPSD组的手术时间和消融时间明显更短。在一年的随访中,HPSD组有77例患者维持窦性心律,LPLD组有74例患者维持窦性心律,两组之间无显著差异。HPSD组有5例患者发生术后并发症,LPLD组有3例患者发生术后并发症。重要的是,两组均未发生重大心脑血管不良事件(MACCE)。
利用EAM系统与ICE结合的零荧光透视工作流程对于房颤患者的消融似乎既可行又安全。在接受ICE引导的零荧光透视消融术的患者中,HPSD策略在有效性方面与LPLD消融相当,同时具有手术时间和消融时间更短的优势。