Utilization of 3D mapping systems in interventional electrophysiology and its impact on procedure time and fluoroscopy—Insights from the “Go for Zero Fluoroscopy” project

Abstract

AbstractAimThe implementation of 3D mapping systems plays an important role in interventional electrophysiology (EP) in recent years. The aim of the present study was to evaluate use of 3D mapping systems regarding fluoroscopy and procedure duration.MethodIn the “Go for Zero Fluoroscopy” project 25 European centers provided data of consecutive EP procedures. Data on use of 3D mapping systems as well as utilization of contact force catheters and multipolar mapping catheters were associated with fluoroscopy time, dose area product (DAP), and procedure duration.ResultA 3D mapping system was used in 966 (54%) cases. Use of 3D mapping for atrioventricular nodal reentry tachycardia (AVNRT) was associated with reduced fluoroscopy time (p < 0.001), DAP (p = 0.04) but increased procedure time (p = 0.029). Moreover, fluoroscopy time (p < 0.001) and DAP (p = 0.005) were significantly lower in the 3D mapping group in ablation of typical atrial flutter. However, the procedure time (p < 0.001) increased. Use of 3D mapping in the ablation of accessory pathway (AP) was associated with reduced fluoroscopy time (p < 0.001) and DAP (p < 0.001) with no significant increase in procedure time (p = 0.066). In the case of atrial fibrillation, a 3D mapping system was used in 485 patients (75.8%). Additional use of a contact force catheter was associated with lower fluoroscopy time (p < 0.001) and DAP (p < 0.001). Use of a multipolar mapping catheter was associated with lower fluoroscopy time (p = 0.002). The implementation of 3D mapping systems in the ablation of ventricular tachycardias resulted in a significant increase in the procedure time (p = 0.001) without significant differences regarding the DAP (p = 0.773) and fluoroscopy time (p = 0.249).ConclusionUse of 3D mapping systems in ablation of supraventricular tachycardias is associated with lower radiation exposure. Nevertheless, the procedure time often increases, except in the case of ablation for AP. Use of contact force catheters and multipolar mapping catheters is associated with yet lower radiation exposure values. Prospective randomized studies are needed to further elucidate potential benefit of these technological tools.