Reduction of Procedure Duration and Radiation Exposure with a Dedicated Inner Lumen Mapping Catheter during Pulmonary Vein Cryoablation
Article first published online: 18 OCT 2012
©2012, The Authors. Journal compilation ©2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology
Volume 36, Issue 1, pages 24–30, January 2013
How to Cite
PEYROL, M., SBRAGIA, P., QUATRE, A., ORABONA, M., CASALTA, A.-C., BOCCARA, G., ZERROUK, Z., GUENOUN, M., LÉVY, S. and PAGANELLI, F. (2013), Reduction of Procedure Duration and Radiation Exposure with a Dedicated Inner Lumen Mapping Catheter during Pulmonary Vein Cryoablation. Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology, 36: 24–30. doi: 10.1111/pace.12015
- Issue published online: 9 JAN 2013
- Article first published online: 18 OCT 2012
- Manuscript Accepted: 21 AUG 2012
- Manuscript Revised: 15 JUL 2012
- Manuscript Received: 10 MAY 2012
- Atrial fibrillation;
- pulmonary vein isolation;
- circular mapping catheter
The Achieve catheter (AC; Medtronic-CryoCath, Pointe-Claire, Canada) is a circular mapping catheter introduced through the lumen of the cryoballoon (CB) catheter which is safe and effective to both navigate the CB to the pulmonary veins (PV) and allow PV potential recording during PV cryoablation. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of the use of the AC on procedural outcomes.
Sixteen consecutive patients (14 men) underwent AC-guided PV isolation (PVI) for drug-refractory paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF; AC group). Clinical and procedural data of these patients were compared to those obtained from 16 consecutive patients who had undergone PVI for paroxysmal AF with the regular “single transseptal” approach (control group).
Clinical characteristics of patients enrolled in both groups did not differ significantly. In the AC group, 64 PVs were targeted using a single 28-mm (n = 13) or 23-mm (n = 3) CB catheter with PVI achieved in 62 PVs (97%). In the control group, 66 PVs were targeted using a single 28-mm (n = 12) or 23-mm (n = 4) CB catheter with PVI achieved in 62 PVs (94%), (P = non-significant for CB size and PVI rate). Procedure duration and fluoroscopy time were significantly reduced in AC group compared to control group (96.6 ± 26 minutes vs 125.9 ± 25 minutes, P = 0.003 and 24.4 ± 10 minutes vs 32.6 ± 11 minutes, P = 0.04, respectively).
The use of the AC significantly reduced procedure duration and radiation exposure during PVI with the CB technique.
(PACE 2013; 36:24–30)