ArticleIrish journal of medical science2021
Non fluoroscopic ablation of different arrhythmic structures in an electrophysiology unit. Assessment of efficiency and security.
Article in Irish journal of medical science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundElectroanatomical mapping systems (EMS) reduce fluoroscopy dose for the ablation. Higher costs and longer procedure times are the drawbacks associated with EMS. Our objective was to validate the efficiency of the EMS.
objectiveTo demonstrate that using EMS is more efficient and as secure as the traditional system of ablation.
methodsFrom April 2013 to June 2018, all patients were included into two groups, according to the intention of ablation with or without fluoroscopy. Right, left, supraventricular and ventricular ablation were included. We compared procedure variables (fluoroscopy, radiofrequency and procedure times, ablation results, complication rates and costs of the procedure) that included material and detrimental effect of fluoroscopy.
resultsA total of 105 were included in the fluoroscopy group and 287 in the without fluoroscopy group. We found an important reduction in time and radiation dose in all the ablation procedures studied, without increasing the procedure time. No differences in ablation results nor complications rate were found. We found lower costs in the flutter ablation without fluoroscopy, similar costs in the right focal tachycardia ablation group and higher costs in the without fluoroscopy group for the AVNRT and left accessory pathway. When detrimental effect of fluoroscopy was added, all procedures without fluoroscopy were significantly more efficient than the ones performed with it.
conclusionsAblation without fluoroscopy is a technique as safe and effective as the conventional technique. Our study suggests that the radiation dose delivered to the patient and staff might be reduced, without increasing the total procedure time, being even more efficient.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.