Zero-fluoroscopy ablation for cardiac arrhythmias: A single-center experience in Japan.

BACKGROUND: Exposure to radiation during catheter ablation procedures poses a risk to the heath of both the patient and electrophysiology laboratory staff. Recently, the feasibility and effectiveness of zero-fluoroscopy ablation have been reported. However, studies on the outcomes of zero-fluoroscopy ablation in Japan remain limited. This study investigated the outcomes of zero-fluoroscopy ablation for cardiac arrhythmias at a Japanese institute. METHODS AND RESULTS: We present a retrospective analysis of the safety, efficacy, and feasibility data from 221 consecutive patients who underwent zero-fluoroscopy ablation. Of these patients, 181 had atrial fibrillation, 17 had paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia, 13 had atrial tachycardia, 6 had ventricular tachycardia, and 4 had ventricular premature contractions. We performed zero-fluoroscopy ablation using three-dimensional electro-anatomical mapping systems and intracardiac echocardiography imaging. Ultrasound-guided sheath insertion was performed on all cases. Our experience includes exclusively endocardial cardiac ablations. The mean follow-up was 24 months. The recurrence rates were 25.4% for atrial fibrillation, 5.9% for paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia, 15.4% for atrial tachycardia, 33.3% for ventricular tachycardia, and 25% for ventricular premature contraction. Complications occurred in two patients (0.9%), and there was no occurrence of death. A fluoroscopic guide was used in three cases for the confirmation of vascular access (one case) and for complications (two cases). CONCLUSIONS: Zero-fluoroscopy ablation was routinely performed without compromising on safety and efficacy. This approach may eliminate the exposure to radiation for all individuals involved in this procedure.

Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in the United States (From the Nationwide Readmission Database).

Clinical outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) have significantly improved with the accumulation of operator and institution experience as well as the wide use of newer generation devices. There is limited data on TAVI outcomes compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in contemporary practice in the United States. We queried the 2018 Nationwide Readmission Database of the United States. International Classification Diagnosis code 10 was used to extract TAVI and SAVR admissions. A propensity-matched cohort was created to compare TAVI and SAVR outcomes. A weighted 48,349 TAVI and 24,896 SAVR for aortic stenosis were included and 4.9% of TAVI were performed with an embolic protection device. In propensity-matched cohort (12,708 TAVI and 12,708 SAVR), TAVI conferred lower in-hospital mortality (1.7% vs 3.8%), acute kidney injury (11.3% vs 22.9%), and transfusion rate (5.9% vs. 20.6%) whereas new pacemaker rate was higher in TAVI compared with SAVR (10.5% vs. 7.0%) (all p values < 0.001). Stroke rate was similar between TAVI and SAVR (1.5% vs. 1.5%) (p value = 0.79). The routine discharge was more frequent (66.9% vs 25.8%) and length of stay was shorter (4.8 vs. 9.8 days) in TAVI than SAVR. Hospitalization cost was higher in SAVR than TAVI (51,962 vs 57,754 U.S. dollars) (all p values < 0.001). In-hospital mortality was also lower in TAVI compared with isolated SAVR. TAVI was performed more frequently than SAVR in 2018 in the United States with lower in-hospital mortality of TAVI compared with both SAVR and isolated SAVR.