Essential Site Maintenance: Authorea-powered sites will be updated circa 15:00-17:00 Eastern on Tuesday 5 November.
There should be no interruption to normal services, but please contact us at [email protected] in case you face any issues.

loading page

Conventional fluoroscopy-guided vs zero-fluoroscopy catheter ablation of supraventricular tachycardias
  • +5
  • Tine Prolic Kalinsek,
  • Jernej Sorli,
  • Matevz Jan,
  • Matjaz Sinkovec,
  • Bor Antolic,
  • Luka Klemen,
  • David Zizek,
  • Andrej Pernat
Tine Prolic Kalinsek
University Medical Centre Ljubljana

Corresponding Author:[email protected]

Author Profile
Jernej Sorli
University of Ljubljana Faculty of Medicine
Author Profile
Matevz Jan
University Medical Centre Ljubljana
Author Profile
Matjaz Sinkovec
University Medical Centre Ljubljana
Author Profile
Bor Antolic
University Medical Centre Ljubljana
Author Profile
Luka Klemen
University Medical Centre Ljubljana
Author Profile
David Zizek
University Medical Centre Ljubljana
Author Profile
Andrej Pernat
University Medical Centre Ljubljana
Author Profile

Abstract

Introduction: The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of zero-fluoroscopy (ZF) catheter ablation (CA) for supraventricular tachycardias (SVT). Methods: 584 consecutive patients referred to our institution for CA of SVT were analysed. Patients were categorised into two groups; zero-fluoroscopy (ZF) group and conventional fluoroscopy (CF) group. The ZF group was further divided into two subgroups (adults and paediatric). Patient characteristics, procedural information, and follow-up data were compared. Results: The ZF group had a higher proportion of paediatric patients (42.2% vs 0.0 %; p < 0.001), resulting in a younger age (30.9 ± 20.3 years vs 52.7 ± 16.5 years; p < 0.001) and lower BMI (22.8 ± 5.7 kg/m2 vs 27.0 ± 5.4 kg/m2; p < 0.001). Procedure time was shorter in the ZF group (94.2 ± 50.4 min vs 104.0 ± 54.0 min; p = 0.002). There were no major complications and the rate of minor complications did not differ between groups (0.0% vs 0.4%; p = 0.304). Acute procedural success as well as the long-term success rate when only the index procedure was considered did not differ between groups (92.5% vs 95.4 %; p = 0.155; 87.1% vs 89.2%; p = 0.422). When repeated procedures were included, the long-term success rate was higher in the ZF group (98.3% vs 93.5%; p < 0.004). The difference can be partially explained by the operators’ preferences. Conclusion: The safety and efficacy of ZF procedures in adult and paediatric populations are comparable to that of CF procedures.