In plain language
This paper describes a planned randomised trial of 210 young patients. It compares standard catheter ablation with 3D mapping-guided near-zero-fluoroscopy ablation, with patient dose as the primary measure and operator dose as a secondary one. It reports no results.
At a glance
- Type of study
- Original research, Randomized trial
- Who was studied
- Patients, Electrophysiologists
- Summary based on
- the abstract
What it found
Planned multicentre randomised trial comparing conventional catheter ablation with EnSite NavX-guided ablation of supraventricular tachyarrhythmias. This design paper reports no results.
Key figures: 210 patients (planned)
The primary end-point is reduction in patient radiation dose. Reduction in operator radiation dose is a secondary end-point.
A subgroup of patients will be assessed for acute chromosomal DNA damage in lymphocytes to evaluate the radiobiological effect of dose reduction.
Limits to keep in mind
This is a protocol and rationale paper with no results, and operator dose is only a secondary end-point. Countries and participating centres are not stated in the abstract.
Related research summaries
- Radiation-Induced Noncancer Risks in Interventional Cardiology: Optimisation of Procedures and Staff and Patient Dose Reduction (2013, Narrative review)
- Fluoroscopy-minimization strategy for catheter ablation of Supraventricular Tachycardia by wOmen OPerators: the STOOP Multicentre Registry (2026, Prospective cohort study)
- Decreased Operator X-Ray Exposure By Optimized Fluoroscopy During Radiofrequency Ablation Of Common Atrial Flutter (2018, Prospective cohort study)
- Reducing radiation exposure during procedures performed in the electrophysiology laboratory (2017, Retrospective cohort study)
- Near zerO fluoroscopic exPosure during catheter ablAtion of supRavenTricular arrhYthmias: the NO-PARTY multicentre randomized trial (2015, Randomized trial)
How this summary was made
ORSIF prepared this summary with AI assistance from the abstract of the paper. A program then checked that the passage supporting each finding appears word for word in that source. A person has not yet reviewed each summary, so read the original before relying on a number. ORSIF summarizes research and does not endorse any product or company. Report a problem with this summary.
Prepared November 3, 2026.