These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Electroanatomic mapping systems (CARTO/EnSite NavX) vs. conventional mapping for ablation procedures in a training program.
    Author: Romero J, Lupercio F, Goodman-Meza D, Ruiz JC, Briceno DF, Fisher JD, Gross J, Ferrick K, Kim S, Di Biase L, Garcia MJ, Krumerman A.
    Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol; 2016 Jan; 45(1):71-80. PubMed ID: 26560500.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Three-dimensional electroanatomic mapping (EAM) systems reduce radiation exposure when radio frequency catheter ablation (RFCA) procedures are performed by well-trained senior operators. Given the steep learning curve associated with complex RFCA, trainees and their mentors must rely on multiple imaging modalities to maximize safety and success, which might increase procedure and fluoroscopy times. The objective of the present study is to determine if 3-D EAM (CARTO and ESI-NavX) improves procedural outcomes (fluoroscopy time, radio frequency time, procedure duration, complication, and success rates) during CA procedures as compared to fluoroscopically guided conventional mapping alone in an academic teaching hospital. METHODS: We analyzed a total of 1070 consecutive RFCA procedures over an 8-year period for fluoroscopic time stratified by ablation target and mapping system. Multivariate logistic regression and adjusted odds ratios were calculated for each variable. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences in acute success rates were noted between conventional and 3-D mapping cases [CARTO (p = 0.68) or ESI-NavX (p = 0.20)]. Moreover, complication rates were also not significantly different between CARTO (p = 0.23) and ESI-NavX (p = 0.53) when compared to conventional mapping. Procedure, radio frequency, and fluoroscopy times were significantly longer with CARTO and ESI-NavX versus conventional mapping [fluoroscopy time: CARTO, 28.3 min; ESI, 28.5 min; and conventional, 24.3 min; p < 0.001)]. CONCLUSIONS: The use of 3-D EAM systems during teaching cases significantly increases radiation exposure when compared with conventional mapping. These findings suggest a need to develop alternative training strategies that enhance confidence and safety during catheter manipulation and allow for reduced fluoroscopy and procedure times during RFCA.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]