Premium
Reduction of Procedure Duration and Radiation Exposure with a Dedicated Inner Lumen Mapping Catheter during Pulmonary Vein Cryoablation
Author(s) -
PEYROL MICHAËL,
SBRAGIA PASCAL,
QUATRE AMANDINE,
ORABONA MORGANE,
CASALTA ANNECLAIRE,
BOCCARA GILLES,
ZERROUK ZINEDINE,
GUENOUN MAXIME,
LÉVY SAMUEL,
PAGANELLI FRANCK
Publication year - 2013
Publication title -
pacing and clinical electrophysiology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.686
H-Index - 101
eISSN - 1540-8159
pISSN - 0147-8389
DOI - 10.1111/pace.12015
Subject(s) - medicine , pulmonary vein , cryoablation , catheter , fluoroscopy , atrial fibrillation , catheter ablation , ablation , nuclear medicine , anesthesia , surgery
Background The Achieve catheter (AC; Medtronic‐CryoCath, Pointe‐Claire, Canada) is a circular mapping catheter introduced through the lumen of the cryoballoon (CB) catheter which is safe and effective to both navigate the CB to the pulmonary veins (PV) and allow PV potential recording during PV cryoablation. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of the use of the AC on procedural outcomes. Methods Sixteen consecutive patients (14 men) underwent AC‐guided PV isolation (PVI) for drug‐refractory paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF; AC group). Clinical and procedural data of these patients were compared to those obtained from 16 consecutive patients who had undergone PVI for paroxysmal AF with the regular “single transseptal” approach (control group). Results Clinical characteristics of patients enrolled in both groups did not differ significantly. In the AC group, 64 PVs were targeted using a single 28‐mm (n = 13) or 23‐mm (n = 3) CB catheter with PVI achieved in 62 PVs (97%). In the control group, 66 PVs were targeted using a single 28‐mm (n = 12) or 23‐mm (n = 4) CB catheter with PVI achieved in 62 PVs (94%), (P = non‐significant for CB size and PVI rate). Procedure duration and fluoroscopy time were significantly reduced in AC group compared to control group (96.6 ± 26 minutes vs 125.9 ± 25 minutes, P = 0.003 and 24.4 ± 10 minutes vs 32.6 ± 11 minutes, P = 0.04, respectively). Conclusion The use of the AC significantly reduced procedure duration and radiation exposure during PVI with the CB technique. (PACE 2013; 36:24–30)