ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Success of atypical atrial flutter (AAFL) ablation has historically been limited by difficulty mapping the complex re-entrant circuits involved. While high-density (HD) mapping has become commonplace in clinical practice, there are limited data on outcomes of HD versus non-HD mapping for AAFL ablation. OBJECTIVE: To compare clinical outcomes and healthcare utilization using HD mapping versus non-HD mapping for AAFL ablation. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of all AAFL procedures between 2005 and 2022 at an academic medical center was conducted. Procedures utilizing a 16-electrode HD Grid catheter and Precision mapping system were compared to procedures using prior generation 10-20 electrode spiral catheters and the Velocity system (Abbott, IL). Cox regression models and Poisson regression models were utilized to examine procedural and healthcare utilization outcomes. Models were adjusted for left ventricular ejection fraction, CHA2DS2-VASc, and history of prior ablation. RESULTS: There were 108 patients (62% HD mapping) included in the analysis. Baseline clinical characteristics were similar between groups. Use of HD mapping was associated with a higher rate of AAFL circuit delineation (92.5% vs. 76%; p = .014) and a greater adjusted procedure success rate, defined as non-inducibility at procedure end, (aRR (95% CI) 1.26 (1.02-1.55) p = .035) than non-HD mapping. HD mapping was also associated with a lower rate of ED visits (aIRR (95% CI) 0.32 (0.14-0.71); p = .007) and hospitalizations (aIRR (95% CI) 0.32 (0.14-0.68); p = .004) for AF/AFL/HF through 1 year. While there was a lower rate of recurrent AFL through 1 year among HD mapping cases (aHR (95% CI) 0.60 (0.31-1.16) p = .13), statistical significance was not met likely due to the low sample size and higher rate of ambulatory rhythm monitoring in the HD group (61% vs. 39%, p = .025). CONCLUSION: Compared to non-HD mapping, AAFL ablation with HD mapping is associated with improvements in the ability to define the AAFL circuit, greater procedural success, and a reduction in the number of ED visits and hospitalization for AF/AFL/HF.
ABSTRACT
In the last decades, radial access, as an alternative to femoral access, has rapidly evolved and emerged as the preferred vascular access for coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The use of radial access for PCI can reduce access-site bleeding, particularly retroperitoneal bleeding, and risk of developing pseudoaneurysm, while also improving patient comfort after procedure (eg, early ambulation). However, radial access requires a longer learning curve to develop technical skills, and the data on radial artery graft for coronary artery bypass graft after radial access remain insufficient. Further, recent clinical trials have shown conflicts regarding whether radial access is associated with lower mortality in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Despite these recent investigations, it is still debated whether there are benefits associated with radial access over femoral access for PCI. In this review, we will evaluate radial access compared with femoral access for PCI on clinical outcomes and further discuss the usefulness of radial access.
