Objective: To evaluate the feasibility, safety, and clinical efficacy of non-fluoroscopic radiofrequency catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) in comparison to traditional fluoroscopy-guided ablation in a local Canadian community cohort.
Methods: We retrospectively studied consecutive patients with paroxysmal and persistent AF undergoing pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) guided by intracardiac echocardiography (ICE) and Carto system (CartoSound module). ICE-guided PVI without fluoroscopy (Zero-fluoro group) was performed in 116 patients, and conventional fluoroscopy-guided PVI (Traditional group) was performed in 131 patients.
Results: Two hundred and forty-seven patients with AF (60.7% male; mean age: 62.2 ± 10.6 years; paroxysmal AF =63.1%) who underwent PVI were studied. Mean procedure times were similar between both groups (136.8±33.4 minutes in the zero-fluoro group vs. 144.3±44.9 minutes in the traditional group; p=0.2). Acute PVI was achieved in all patients. Survival from early AF recurrence was 85% and 81% in the zero-fluoro and traditional groups, respectively (p = 0.06). Survival from late AF recurrence (12-months) between the zero-fluoro and traditional groups was also similar (p=0.1). Moreover, there were no significant differences between complication rates, including hematoma (p = 0.2) and tamponade (p = 1),between both groups.
Conclusions: Zero-fluoroscopy ICE and CartoSound-guided AF ablation may be safe and feasible in patients undergoing PVI compared to conventional fluoroscopy-guided ablation.
Keywords: Atrial fibrillation; Deviation; Dofetilide; Protocol.