Intracardiac Echo Versus Fluoroscopic Guidance for Pulsed Field Ablation: Single-Center Real-Life Study.

IF 3.9 3区 工程技术 Q2 BIOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY
Vivek Joseph Varughese, James Pollock, Chandler Richardson, Dominic Vacca, Hata Mujadzic, Sultan Siddique
{"title":"Intracardiac Echo Versus Fluoroscopic Guidance for Pulsed Field Ablation: Single-Center Real-Life Study.","authors":"Vivek Joseph Varughese, James Pollock, Chandler Richardson, Dominic Vacca, Hata Mujadzic, Sultan Siddique","doi":"10.3390/biomedicines13051186","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Pulsed field ablation (PFA) is a novel non-thermal modality for catheter ablation (CA) in atrial fibrillation (AF) and has been replacing traditional thermal modalities. There have been studies in the past comparing fluoroscopic (FL) versus intracardiac echocardiogram (ICE) guidance for thermal ablation modalities. However, there have not been studies that compare outcomes for PFA performed under ICE versus FL guidance. <b>Methods:</b> This study was designed in a longitudinal cross-sectional format. A total of 196 patients who underwent PFA for AF at Prisma Health Richland were selected for the retrospective analysis. Patients were divided into two groups: those who underwent PFA under FL guidance (103 patients) versus ICE guidance (93 patients). The recurrence of atrial arrhythmias in the six-month follow-up period was studied. Multivariate regression analysis was performed to assess the difference in the association of either modality with recurrence of atrial arrhythmias. Bayesian non-inferiority models were used to analyze the non-inferiority between the modalities. <b>Results:</b> A total of 31 patients (30.1%) in the fluoro group had documented atrial arrhythmias in the six months following ablation. While 23 patients (24.7%) in the ICE group had documented atrial arrhythmias in the six-month follow-up period. The recurrence of AF was noted in 22.3% (22 patients) in the fluoro group and 14% (13 patients) in the ICE group. After running the multivariate regression analysis models, PFA under fluoroscopic guidance did not differ from ICE guidance, in terms of the recurrent atrial arrhythmias in the six-month follow-up (Adjusted Odds Ratio: 0.964; 95% CI: 0.336-2.772). The fluoro and ICE groups also did not differ in terms of six-month atrial fibrillation recurrence (Adjusted Odds Ratio: 2.43; 95% CI: 0.649-9.19). Non-inferiority analysis with Bayesian model was carried out, comparing the fluoro group and the ICE group in terms of freedom from arrhythmias in the six-month follow-up, and no inferiority was proved (95% confidence interval: -0.18-0.053), with a 61.03% chance of ICE-guided PFA being superior to fluoro guidance in terms of recurrence free interval, but statistical significance was not reached. <b>Conclusions:</b> Mean fluoroscopic time in the FL guidance group was 15.9 min, while no radiation exposure was documented in the ICE group. CA performed under FL versus ICE guidance did not differ statistically in terms of six-month recurrence of atrial arrhythmias in general and AF in particular.</p>","PeriodicalId":8937,"journal":{"name":"Biomedicines","volume":"13 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12109189/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biomedicines","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines13051186","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BIOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Pulsed field ablation (PFA) is a novel non-thermal modality for catheter ablation (CA) in atrial fibrillation (AF) and has been replacing traditional thermal modalities. There have been studies in the past comparing fluoroscopic (FL) versus intracardiac echocardiogram (ICE) guidance for thermal ablation modalities. However, there have not been studies that compare outcomes for PFA performed under ICE versus FL guidance. Methods: This study was designed in a longitudinal cross-sectional format. A total of 196 patients who underwent PFA for AF at Prisma Health Richland were selected for the retrospective analysis. Patients were divided into two groups: those who underwent PFA under FL guidance (103 patients) versus ICE guidance (93 patients). The recurrence of atrial arrhythmias in the six-month follow-up period was studied. Multivariate regression analysis was performed to assess the difference in the association of either modality with recurrence of atrial arrhythmias. Bayesian non-inferiority models were used to analyze the non-inferiority between the modalities. Results: A total of 31 patients (30.1%) in the fluoro group had documented atrial arrhythmias in the six months following ablation. While 23 patients (24.7%) in the ICE group had documented atrial arrhythmias in the six-month follow-up period. The recurrence of AF was noted in 22.3% (22 patients) in the fluoro group and 14% (13 patients) in the ICE group. After running the multivariate regression analysis models, PFA under fluoroscopic guidance did not differ from ICE guidance, in terms of the recurrent atrial arrhythmias in the six-month follow-up (Adjusted Odds Ratio: 0.964; 95% CI: 0.336-2.772). The fluoro and ICE groups also did not differ in terms of six-month atrial fibrillation recurrence (Adjusted Odds Ratio: 2.43; 95% CI: 0.649-9.19). Non-inferiority analysis with Bayesian model was carried out, comparing the fluoro group and the ICE group in terms of freedom from arrhythmias in the six-month follow-up, and no inferiority was proved (95% confidence interval: -0.18-0.053), with a 61.03% chance of ICE-guided PFA being superior to fluoro guidance in terms of recurrence free interval, but statistical significance was not reached. Conclusions: Mean fluoroscopic time in the FL guidance group was 15.9 min, while no radiation exposure was documented in the ICE group. CA performed under FL versus ICE guidance did not differ statistically in terms of six-month recurrence of atrial arrhythmias in general and AF in particular.

心内超声与透视引导脉冲场消融:单中心现实研究。
背景:脉冲场消融(PFA)是心房颤动(AF)导管消融(CA)的一种新型非热模式,已经取代了传统的热模式。过去有研究比较了透视(FL)和心内超声心动图(ICE)指导的热消融方式。然而,还没有研究比较在ICE和FL指导下进行PFA的结果。方法:本研究采用纵向横断面设计。选取196例在Prisma Health Richland接受房颤PFA治疗的患者进行回顾性分析。患者分为两组:在FL指导下接受PFA的患者(103例)和ICE指导下接受PFA的患者(93例)。随访6个月,观察房性心律失常复发情况。进行多因素回归分析以评估两种方式与房性心律失常复发的相关性差异。采用贝叶斯非劣效性模型分析各模态之间的非劣效性。结果:氟组31例(30.1%)患者在消融后6个月内出现房性心律失常。而ICE组的23例患者(24.7%)在6个月的随访期间记录了心房心律失常。氟组有22.3%(22例)房颤复发,ICE组有14%(13例)房颤复发。运行多因素回归分析模型后,在6个月的随访中,透视指导下PFA与ICE指导下的房性心律失常复发率无差异(校正优势比:0.964;95% ci: 0.336-2.772)。氟组和ICE组在6个月房颤复发率方面也没有差异(校正优势比:2.43;95% ci: 0.649-9.19)。采用贝叶斯模型进行非劣效性分析,比较氟组与ICE组6个月随访期间无心律失常的情况,无劣效性证明(95%可信区间:-0.18-0.053),ICE引导下PFA在无复发间隔方面优于氟组的概率为61.03%,但未达到统计学意义。结论:FL引导组平均透视时间为15.9 min,而ICE组无辐射暴露记录。在FL指导下进行的CA与ICE指导下进行的CA在一般心房心律失常的6个月复发率方面没有统计学差异,特别是房颤。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Biomedicines
Biomedicines Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology-General Biochemistry,Genetics and Molecular Biology
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
8.50%
发文量
2823
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊介绍: Biomedicines (ISSN 2227-9059; CODEN: BIOMID) is an international, scientific, open access journal on biomedicines published quarterly online by MDPI.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信