Abstract
Aims
To examine the feasibility and safety of a novel protocol for low fluoroscopy, electroanatomic mapping (EAM)-guided Cardiac resynchronization therapy with a defibrillator (CRT-D) implantation and using both EnSite NavX (St. Jude Medical, St. Paul, MN, USA) and Carto 3 (Biosense Webster, Irvine, CA, USA) mapping systems.
Methods and results
Twenty consecutive patients underwent CRT implantation using either a conventional fluoroscopic approach (CFA) or EAM-guided lead placement with Carto 3 and EnSite NavX mapping systems. We compared fluoroscopy and procedural times, radiopaque contrast dose, change in QRS duration pre- and post-procedure, and complications in all patients. Fluoroscopy time was 86% lower in the EAM group compared to the conventional group [mean 37.2 min (CFA) vs. 5.5 min (EAM), P = 0.00003]. There was no significant difference in total procedural time [mean 183 min (CFA) vs. 161 min (EAM), P = 0.33] but radiopaque contrast usage was lower in the EAM group [mean 16 mL (CFA) vs. 4 mL (EAM), P = 0.006]. Likewise, there was no significant change in QRS duration with BiV pacing between the groups [mean −13 (CFA) vs. −25 ms (EAM), P = 0.09].
Conclusion
Electroanatomic mapping-guided lead placement using either Carto or ESI NavX mapping systems is a feasible alternative to conventional fluoroscopic methods for CRT-D implantation utilizing the protocol described in this study.
Use of Electroanatomic Mapping Systems beyond Electrophysiologic Studies
