METHODS: This retrospective study collected the periprocedural complications and PVC burden post ablation. The risk factors of PVC recurrence was further explored.
RESULTS: The study included patients treated without ICE (control group, n = 451) and with ICE (ICE group, n = 155) from May 2019 to July 2022. The ICE group demonstrated significantly lower fluoroscopy times and X-ray doses. There were no major complications in the ICE group, and the difference in the occurrence of periprocedural complications between the groups was not statistically significant (p = 0.072). The long-term success rates were similar for the control and ICE groups (89.6% and 87.1%, respectively). The origin of PVCs was identified as the independent factor for ablation success.
CONCLUSIONS: The use of ICE did not confer an advantage with regard to long-term success in PVCs ablation. To thoroughly evaluate the safety and effectiveness of ICE in PVCs ablation, a prospective, multicenter, randomized study is warranted.
方法:本回顾性研究收集了消融后的围手术期并发症和PVC负担。进一步探讨PVC复发的危险因素。
结果:该研究包括未接受ICE治疗的患者(对照组,n=451)和ICE(ICE组,n=155),从2019年5月到2022年7月。ICE组的透视时间和X射线剂量明显较低。ICE组无重大并发症,两组围手术期并发症发生率差异无统计学意义(p=0.072).对照组和ICE组的长期成功率相似(89.6%和87.1%,分别)。PVCs的来源被确定为消融成功的独立因素。
结论:在PVCs消融中使用ICE并没有带来长期成功的优势。为全面评估ICE在PVCs消融中的安全性和有效性,一个潜在的,多中心,随机研究是必要的。