The safety and efficacy of electroanatomical mapping (EAM)-guided device implantation.

Pacing Clin Electrophysiol

Department of Cardiology, Ascension Providence Hospital, Michigan State University, Southfield, Michigan.

Published: July 2019

Background: The conventional method of device implantation requires fluoroscopic guidance. With the guidance of three-dimensional (3-D) navigation systems, devices can be implanted with minimal use of fluoroscopy. To date, this technique has been reported in several case reports in young, pregnant patients. However, this technique has not been widely utilized by electrophysiologists, despite offering several benefits, including reduced radiation exposure for the patient and the operator.

Methods: In this study, we evaluated 18 patients who successfully underwent device implantation with limited use of fluoroscopy under the guidance of the EnSite Precision 3-D mapping navigation system (Abbott, St. Paul, MN, USA). In most of the patients, the total fluoroscopy time was 1 s, accounted by a single postprocedural frame to insure appropriate lead placement.

Results: A total of 19 leads were implanted in 18 patients (14 male, four female) using the electroanatomical mapping (EAM)-guided technique. A total of 19 leads were implanted in 15 patients (10 male, five female) using the conventional method. The average length of stay was 1.20 days in the EAM group compared to 1.47 days in the conventional group (P = .10). Majority of the devices implanted in both groups were single-chamber implantable cardiac defibrillators (VVI ICD, Abbott) implanted for cardiomyopathy with left ventricular ejection fraction persistently below 35%, including 88% (16/18) in the EAM group compared to 73% (11/15) in the conventional group. No periprocedural or immediate postprocedure complications were reported in either group. Device parameters, including impedance, capture time, and capture voltage, showed no significant difference in either group. Total radiation time and radiation dose were markedly lower in the EAM-guided implantation group.

Conclusions: In patients who meet appropriate criteria for device implantation, the use of EAM system offers a safe, practical, efficacious alternative method to device implantation, with significant reduction in radiation time and dose.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/pace.13724DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

device implantation
20
electroanatomical mapping
8
mapping eam-guided
8
conventional method
8
method device
8
devices implanted
8
total leads
8
leads implanted
8
implanted patients
8
patients male
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!