ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The CONVERGE trial demonstrated that hybrid epicardial and endocardial ablation was more effective than catheter ablation for the treatment of persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) at 1 year. Long-term real-world outcome data are scarce. OBJECTIVE: We described a single-center experience by evaluating the long-term effectiveness and safety of hybrid epicardial-endocardial ablation. METHODS: This is a retrospective single-center study. Patients were followed up to 4 years. The primary end point was the rate of AF recurrence up to 4 years postablation. Secondary end points included reduction in antiarrhythmic therapy use, the effect of the ligament of Marshall removal, epicardial posterior wall, 3-dimensional mapping during epicardial ablation, and left atrial appendage exclusion as adjunct intraoperative interventions for AF recurrence. RESULTS: Of the 170 patients, 86.5% had persistent AF and 13.5% had long-standing persistent AF. AF-free survival was 87.6% at 1 year, 76.9% at 2 years, 70.4% at 3 years, and 59.3% at 4 years. Antiarrhythmic drug use was 87.6% at baseline and reduced to 21%, 20.6%, 18%, and 14.1% at year 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively (P < .01 for all). Three-dimensional epicardial mapping showed a significant reduction in combined recurrence from 42% to 25% over 4 years of follow-up (P = .023). Ligament of Marshall and left atrial appendage exclusion showed numerical reduction in AF recurrence from 35% to 26% (P = .49) and from 44% to 30% (P = .07). CONCLUSION: The hybrid convergent procedure reduces AF recurrence and the need for antiarrhythmic drugs and, while maintaining a good safety profile, for the treatment of persistent and long-standing persistent AF.
ABSTRACT
Importance: Transesophageal echocardiography during percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAO) and transcatheter edge-to-edge mitral valve repair (TEER) require an interventional echocardiographer to stand near the radiation source and patient, the primary source of scatter radiation. Despite previous work demonstrating high radiation exposure for interventional cardiologists performing percutaneous coronary and structural heart interventions, similar data for interventional echocardiographers are lacking. Objective: To assess whether interventional echocardiographers are exposed to greater radiation doses than interventional cardiologists and sonographers during structural heart procedures. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this single-center cross-sectional study, radiation doses were collected from interventional echocardiographers, interventional cardiologists, and sonographers at a quaternary care center during 30 sequential LAAO and 30 sequential TEER procedures from July 1, 2016, to January 31, 2018. Participants and study personnel were blinded to radiation doses through data analysis (January 1, 2020, to October 12, 2021). Exposures: Occupation defined as interventional echocardiographers, interventional cardiologists, and sonographers. Main Outcomes and Measures: Measured personal dose equivalents per case were recorded using real-time radiation dosimeters. Results: A total of 60 (30 TEER and 30 LAAO) procedures were performed in 60 patients (mean [SD] age, 79 [8] years; 32 [53.3%] male) with a high cardiovascular risk factor burden. The median radiation dose per case was higher for interventional echocardiographers (10.6 µSv; IQR, 4.2-22.4 µSv) than for interventional cardiologists (2.1 µSv; IQR, 0.2-8.3 µSv; P < .001). During TEER, interventional echocardiographers received a median radiation dose of 10.5 µSv (IQR, 3.1-20.5 µSv), which was higher than the median radiation dose received by interventional cardiologists (0.9 µSv; IQR, 0.1-12.2 µSv; P < .001). During LAAO procedures, the median radiation dose was 10.6 µSv (IQR, 5.8-24.1 µSv) among interventional echocardiographers and 3.5 (IQR, 1.3-6.3 µSv) among interventional cardiologists (P < .001). Compared with interventional echocardiographers, sonographers exhibited low median radiation doses during both LAAO (0.2 µSv; IQR, 0.0-1.6 µSv; P < .001) and TEER (0.0 µSv; IQR, 0.0-0.1 µSv; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, interventional echocardiographers were exposed to higher radiation doses than interventional cardiologists during LAAO and TEER procedures, whereas sonographers demonstrated comparatively lower radiation doses. Higher radiation doses indicate a previously underappreciated occupational risk faced by interventional echocardiographers, which has implications for the rapidly expanding structural heart team.
