Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE · 2020
Contact- versus noncontact-guided ablation of the right ventricular outflow tract arrhythmias: A propensity score matched analysis.
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.
Chen Xinguang, Sun Ling, Chen Qiushi, Kojodjojo Pipin, Chen Hongwu, Ju Weizhu, Zhu Wenwu, Zhu Yeqian, Zhao Pengcheng, Zhang Fengxiang, Chen Minglong
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: There are unique advantages and disadvantages in the choice of contact mapping (CM) versus noncontact mapping (NCM) systems during ablation of right ventricular outflow tract (RVOT) arrhythmias. This study compared acute procedural success and clinical outcomes in matched patients undergoing CM- versus NCM-guided RVOT ablation.
METHODS: A total of 167 consecutive patients with idiopathic RVOT ventricular arrhythmias underwent NCM- or CM-guided ablation. Propensity scoring was used to match each patient undergoing NCM-guided ablation to one control patient undergoing CM-guided ablation.
RESULTS: A total of 120 patients were included in this final analysis. If initial ablation was acutely unsuccessful in either group, patients crossed over to the other group. Ablation was acutely successful in 47 of 60 (78.3 %) patients in the NCM group and 55 of 60 (91.7%) in the CM group (P = .002). Thirteen NCM patients required CM and two CM patients crossed over to utilize NCM (P = .002). Procedural duration, fluoroscopy time, and dose in NCM were greater than that in CM (P < .05, respectively). However, procedural complications were not different between two groups. During a mean follow-up of 51 ± 20.6 months, 51 of the 60 NCM patients remained free of arrhythmia, while 48 of the 60 CM patients had no recurrent arrhythmias (P = .47).
CONCLUSION: Contact mapping, compared to NCM, is the superior initial technique to guide RVOT arrhythmia ablation due to a higher procedural success without the need to switch to alternative mapping techniques and shorter procedural and fluoroscopic times.
METHODS: A total of 167 consecutive patients with idiopathic RVOT ventricular arrhythmias underwent NCM- or CM-guided ablation. Propensity scoring was used to match each patient undergoing NCM-guided ablation to one control patient undergoing CM-guided ablation.
RESULTS: A total of 120 patients were included in this final analysis. If initial ablation was acutely unsuccessful in either group, patients crossed over to the other group. Ablation was acutely successful in 47 of 60 (78.3 %) patients in the NCM group and 55 of 60 (91.7%) in the CM group (P = .002). Thirteen NCM patients required CM and two CM patients crossed over to utilize NCM (P = .002). Procedural duration, fluoroscopy time, and dose in NCM were greater than that in CM (P < .05, respectively). However, procedural complications were not different between two groups. During a mean follow-up of 51 ± 20.6 months, 51 of the 60 NCM patients remained free of arrhythmia, while 48 of the 60 CM patients had no recurrent arrhythmias (P = .47).
CONCLUSION: Contact mapping, compared to NCM, is the superior initial technique to guide RVOT arrhythmia ablation due to a higher procedural success without the need to switch to alternative mapping techniques and shorter procedural and fluoroscopic times.