Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology · 2020
Multipolar mapping with the high-density grid catheter compared with conventional point-by-point mapping to guide catheter ablation for focal arrhythmias.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Chieng David, Lahiri Anandaroop, Sugumar Hariharan, Al-Kaisey Ahmed, Parameswaran Ramanathan, Anderson Robert D, Prabhu Sandeep, Ling Liang-Han, Morton Joseph B, McLellan Alex J, Lee Geoffrey, Kalman Jonathan M, McGavigan Andrew D, Kistler Peter M
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Multipolar catheters provide high-density mapping which may reduce the procedural duration and improve the success of catheter ablation (CA) for focal arrhythmias. The high-density grid (HDG) catheter is a 16 electrode mapping catheter with bipole recordings at orthogonal splines. The aim of this study is to compare the clinical and procedural features from a cohort who underwent CA for focal arrhythmias using multipolar mapping (MPM) with age and case-matched cohort using point-by-point (PbyP) mapping.
METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing CA for focal arrhythmias between October 2018 and January 2020 guided by MPM were compared with PbyP mapping with the ablation catheter over a similar period. Demographics, procedural features, and outcomes were compared.
RESULTS: A total of 54 patients (27 in MPM vs. 27 in PbyP mapping) underwent CA for 68 focal arrhythmias (26 atrial and 42 ventricular). In the MPM group, the electrogram at the successful site was significantly earlier (39 ± 11 ms) than in the PbyP group (33 ± 7 ms; p = .02). In the MPM group, the mapping time (35 ± 24 vs. 53 ± 31 min in PbyP; p = .03) and procedural duration (126 ± 42 vs. 153 ± 39 min in PbyP; p = .02) were significantly shorter. There was no significant difference in radiofrequency and fluoroscopy times, acute procedural success, and arrhythmia recurrence.
CONCLUSION: MPM with the HDG catheter for focal tachycardias identified earlier activation times and was associated with shorter mapping and procedure duration with equivalent success to PbyP mapping.
METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing CA for focal arrhythmias between October 2018 and January 2020 guided by MPM were compared with PbyP mapping with the ablation catheter over a similar period. Demographics, procedural features, and outcomes were compared.
RESULTS: A total of 54 patients (27 in MPM vs. 27 in PbyP mapping) underwent CA for 68 focal arrhythmias (26 atrial and 42 ventricular). In the MPM group, the electrogram at the successful site was significantly earlier (39 ± 11 ms) than in the PbyP group (33 ± 7 ms; p = .02). In the MPM group, the mapping time (35 ± 24 vs. 53 ± 31 min in PbyP; p = .03) and procedural duration (126 ± 42 vs. 153 ± 39 min in PbyP; p = .02) were significantly shorter. There was no significant difference in radiofrequency and fluoroscopy times, acute procedural success, and arrhythmia recurrence.
CONCLUSION: MPM with the HDG catheter for focal tachycardias identified earlier activation times and was associated with shorter mapping and procedure duration with equivalent success to PbyP mapping.