ABSTRACT
<p><b>OBJECTIVE</b>To explore the feasibility and methodology of radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA) guided by 3D navigation system (Ensite-NavX) for right atrioventricular accessory pathway.</p><p><b>METHOD</b>Thirty-three cases of right accessory pathway atrioventricular reentrant tachycardia including 16 cases in right free wall, 3 in right middle septum, 14 in right posterior septum; 23 cases of dominant accessory pathway and 10 cases of concealed were treated by RFCA guided by NavX navigation. NavX navigation modeling method or spatial localization method was exploited to locate target positioning.</p><p><b>RESULT</b>All patients were successfully ablated without serious complications. Among them, 25 cases were operated without exposure to X-ray, 7 patients were exposed for several seconds to verify catheter position, 1 case in right free wall was ablated under X-ray combined with Swartz sheath ablation.</p><p><b>CONCLUSION</b>Nonfluoroscopy or less fluoroscopy RFCA for right atrioventricular accessory pathway with Ensite-NavX is safe and feasible, modeling or spatial orientation method are helpful to locate the ablation target positioning.</p>
Subject(s)
Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Young Adult , Catheter Ablation , Methods , Imaging, Three-Dimensional , Surgery, Computer-Assisted , Tachycardia, Atrioventricular Nodal Reentry , General SurgeryABSTRACT
<p><b>OBJECTIVE</b>To compare the efficacy and safety between cryoablation (Cryo) and radiofrequency (RF) ablation for treating patients with atrioventricular nodal reentrant tachycardia (AVNRT).</p><p><b>METHODS</b>Patients with AVNRT (n = 304) were divided into Cryo group (n = 67) and RF group (n = 237). The procedure success rate, complete slow pathway block rate, atrioventricular block rate and relapse rate were compared between two groups.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>There was no statistically difference between 2 groups in the success rate (Cryo group 98.5% vs RF group 97.0%, P = 0.820), complete slow pathway block rate (Cryo group 98.5% vs RF group 91.6%, P = 0.088), atrioventricular block rate (Cryo group 0 vs RF group 2.5%, P = 0.413), relapse rate (Cryo group 0 vs RF group 1.7%, P = 0.643). But Cryo group had more advantage than RF group.</p><p><b>CONCLUSION</b>Efficacy and safety were comparable between cryoablation and radiofrequency ablation for treating patients with AVNRT.</p>