Comparative Study
Evaluation Studies
Journal Article
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Extremely low-frame-rate digital fluoroscopy in catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation: A comparison of 2 versus 4 frame rate.

Despite the technological advance in 3-dimensional (3D) mapping, radiation exposure during catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) continues to be a major concern in both patients and physicians. Previous studies reported substantial radiation exposure (7369-8690 cGy cm) during AF catheter ablation with fluoroscopic settings of 7.5 frames per second (FPS) under 3D mapping system guidance. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of a low-frame-rate fluoroscopy protocol for catheter ablation for AF.Retrospective analysis of data on 133 patients who underwent AF catheter ablation with 3-D electro-anatomic mapping at our institute from January 2014 to May 2015 was performed. Since January 2014, fluoroscopy frame rate of 4-FPS was implemented at our institute, which was further decreased to 2-FPS in September 2014. We compared the radiation exposure quantified as dose area product (DAP) and effective dose (ED) between the 4-FPS (n = 57) and 2-FPS (n = 76) groups.The 4-FPS group showed higher median DAP (599.9 cGy cm; interquartile range [IR], 371.4-1337.5 cGy cm vs. 392.0 cGy cm; IR, 289.7-591.4 cGy cm; P < .01), longer median fluoroscopic time (24.4 min; IR, 17.5-34.9 min vs. 15.1 min; IR, 10.7-20.1 min; P < .01), and higher median ED (1.1 mSv; IR, 0.7-2.5 mSv vs. 0.7 mSv; IR, 0.6-1.1 mSv; P < .01) compared with the 2-FPS group. No major procedure-related complications such as cardiac tamponade were observed in either group. Over follow-up durations of 331 ± 197 days, atrial tachyarrhythmia recurred in 20 patients (35.1%) in the 4-FPS group and in 27 patients (35.5%) in the 2-FPS group (P = .96). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis revealed no significant different between the 2 groups (log rank, P = .25).In conclusion, both the 4-FPS and 2-FPS settings were feasible and emitted a relatively low level of radiation compared with that historically reported for DAP in a conventional fluoroscopy setting.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app