Independent factors of low radiation dose during atrial fibrillation ablation with cryoballoon or radiofrequency: Results from the "Go for zero fluoroscopy" registry. Issue 11 (6th October 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Gras, Matthieu; Garcia, Rodrigue; Waldmann, Victor; Bergère, Vincent; Duncker, David; De Potter, Tom; Fiedler, Lukas; Moscoso Costa, Francisco; Antolič, Bor; Kosiuk, Jedrzej
• Is Part Of: Pacing and clinical electrophysiology. Volume 44:Issue 11(2021)
• Page Start: 1853
• Page End: 1860
• Publication Date: 2021-10-06
• Subjects: atrial fibrillation -- atrial fibrillation ablation -- fluoroscopy -- radiation -- zero fluoroscopy; Cardiac pacing -- Periodicals; Electrophysiology -- Periodicals; 617.4120645
• DOI: 10.1111/pace.14366
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0147-8389

Abstract

Abstract: Aims: Atrial fibrillation (AF) catheter ablation is a common procedure requiring in most cases the use of fluoroscopy. We aimed to evaluate the factors associated with a lower dose of fluoroscopy used during AF ablation with cryoballoon or radiofrequency. Methods: In this prospective European registry, centers were requested to provide procedural characteristics of consecutive AF ablation cases. Lower doses of fluoroscopy were defined as those with dose‐area‐product (DAP) under the median dose used in the radiofrequency and the cryoballoon ablation groups. Results: A total of 638 AF ablation procedures were collected (n = 492 for radiofrequency and n = 146 for cryoballoon ablation groups) in 25 centers. The median [IQR] DAP were 926 [349;2092] and 1516 [418;3408] cGy*cm 2 in the radiofrequency and cryoballoon groups, respectively. Main factors associated with lower DAP in cryoballoon ablation group were electrophysiology dedicated laboratory (OR 6.04, 95%CI 1.16–31.54; P = .03) and frequent dosimetry report (OR 21.39, 95%CI 5.43–98.54; P = .03). Main factors associated with lower DAP in the radiofrequency ablation group were the use of a chest dosimeter (OR 12.57, 95% CI 2.88‐54.90; P = .01), biplane X‐ray equipment (OR 3.12, 95%CI 1.89‐5.16; P < .01), university hospital (OR 2.10, 95%CI 1.35‐3.25; P = .01), electrophysiology dedicated laboratory (OR 2.45, 95%CI 1.48‐4.05; P < .01) and use of contact force enabled catheter (OR 22.60, 95%CI 6.82‐74.88; P < .01). Conclusion: This real‐life study of fluoroscopy use during AF ablation provides new data about current practices across European countries. Technological advances and quality of the fluoroscopic environment were the main factors associated with lower radiation dose during AF ablation.