Impact of a Novel Catheter Tracking System on Radiation Exposure during the Procedural Phases of Atrial Fibrillation and Flutter Ablation
Background Fluoroscopic guidance is used to position catheters during cardiac ablation. We evaluated the impact of a novel nonfluoroscopic sensor‐guided electromagnetic navigation system (MG) on radiation exposure during catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) or atrial flutter (AFL). Methods...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Pacing and clinical electrophysiology 2015-07, Vol.38 (7), p.784-790 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 790 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 7 |
| container_start_page | 784 |
| container_title | Pacing and clinical electrophysiology |
| container_volume | 38 |
| creator | MALLIET, NICOLAS ANDRADE, JASON G. KHAIRY, PAUL NGUYEN THANH, HIEN KIEM VENIER, SANDRINE DUBUC, MARC DYRDA, KATIA GUERRA, PETER MONDÉSERT, BLANDINE RIVARD, LÉNA TADROS, RAFIK TALAJIC, MARIO THIBAULT, BERNARD ROY, DENIS MACLE, LAURENT |
| description | Background
Fluoroscopic guidance is used to position catheters during cardiac ablation. We evaluated the impact of a novel nonfluoroscopic sensor‐guided electromagnetic navigation system (MG) on radiation exposure during catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) or atrial flutter (AFL).
Methods
A total of 134 consecutive patients referred for ablation of AF (n = 44) or AFL (n = 90) ablation were prospectively enrolled. In one group the MG system was used for nonfluoroscopic catheter positioning, whereas in the conventional group standard fluoroscopy was utilized. Fluoroscopy times were assessed for each stage of procedure and total radiation exposure was quantified.
Results
Patient characteristics were similar between the groups. The procedural end point was achieved in all. Median (interquartile range [IQR]) fluoroscopy times were 12.5 minutes (7.6, 17.4) MG group versus 21.5 minutes (15.3, 23.0) conventional group (P < 0.0001) for AF ablation, and 0.8 minutes (0.4, 2.5) MG group versus 9.9 minutes (5.1, 22.5) conventional group (P < 0.0001) for AFL ablation. Median (IQR) total radiation exposure (μGy·m2) was 1,107 (906, 2,033) MG group versus 2,835 (1,688, 3,855) conventional group (P = 0.0001) for AF ablation, and 161 (65, 537) MG group versus 1,651 (796, 4,569) conventional group (P < 0.0001) for AFL ablation. No difference in total procedural time was seen.
Conclusions
The use of a novel nonfluoroscopic catheter tracking system is associated with a significant reduction in radiation exposure during AF and AFL ablation (61% and 90% reduction, respectively). In the era of heightened awareness of the importance of radiation reduction, this system represents a safe and efficient tool to decrease radiation exposure during electrophysiological ablation procedures. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1111/pace.12611 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1693183418</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1693183418</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4331-f65e4c0b415abaec0df59bd8bece5e6bcecd7cf6f2adbd7728602304c4dfaf453</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kc1uEzEUhS0EoiGw4QGQlwhpij3-mckyipJQEZUIikBsLP9cU9OZTLBnoHkE3hoP03aJJcu-V985vjpG6CUl5zSvt0dt4ZyWktJHaEYFJ0VNxeIxmhHKq6Jm9eIMPUvpByFEEi6eorNSyLqsOZuhPxdtlve481jjy-4XNHil-2voIeKrqO1NOHzHn06phxZ3B_xRu6D7kG_r22OXhgjYDXFksgbvY2ch17rB-2udII22yz6G3NgEE0PTTGJ9cHjTDP34ytJMzefoiddNghd35xx93qyvVu-K3YftxWq5KyxnjBZeCuCWGE6FNhoscV4sjKsNWBAgjQXrKuulL7UzrqrKWpKSEW6589pzwebo9eR7jN3PAVKv2pAs5NEO0A1JUblgtGY87zl6M6E2dilF8OoYQ6vjSVGixujVGL36F32GX935DqYF94DeZ50BOgG_QwOn_1ip_XK1vjctJk3IP3D7oNHxRsmKVUJ9udyqr3u5kdtvO_We_QW64qDW</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1693183418</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Impact of a Novel Catheter Tracking System on Radiation Exposure during the Procedural Phases of Atrial Fibrillation and Flutter Ablation</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>MALLIET, NICOLAS ; ANDRADE, JASON G. ; KHAIRY, PAUL ; NGUYEN THANH, HIEN KIEM ; VENIER, SANDRINE ; DUBUC, MARC ; DYRDA, KATIA ; GUERRA, PETER ; MONDÉSERT, BLANDINE ; RIVARD, LÉNA ; TADROS, RAFIK ; TALAJIC, MARIO ; THIBAULT, BERNARD ; ROY, DENIS ; MACLE, LAURENT</creator><creatorcontrib>MALLIET, NICOLAS ; ANDRADE, JASON G. ; KHAIRY, PAUL ; NGUYEN THANH, HIEN KIEM ; VENIER, SANDRINE ; DUBUC, MARC ; DYRDA, KATIA ; GUERRA, PETER ; MONDÉSERT, BLANDINE ; RIVARD, LÉNA ; TADROS, RAFIK ; TALAJIC, MARIO ; THIBAULT, BERNARD ; ROY, DENIS ; MACLE, LAURENT</creatorcontrib><description>Background
Fluoroscopic guidance is used to position catheters during cardiac ablation. We evaluated the impact of a novel nonfluoroscopic sensor‐guided electromagnetic navigation system (MG) on radiation exposure during catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) or atrial flutter (AFL).
Methods
A total of 134 consecutive patients referred for ablation of AF (n = 44) or AFL (n = 90) ablation were prospectively enrolled. In one group the MG system was used for nonfluoroscopic catheter positioning, whereas in the conventional group standard fluoroscopy was utilized. Fluoroscopy times were assessed for each stage of procedure and total radiation exposure was quantified.
Results
Patient characteristics were similar between the groups. The procedural end point was achieved in all. Median (interquartile range [IQR]) fluoroscopy times were 12.5 minutes (7.6, 17.4) MG group versus 21.5 minutes (15.3, 23.0) conventional group (P < 0.0001) for AF ablation, and 0.8 minutes (0.4, 2.5) MG group versus 9.9 minutes (5.1, 22.5) conventional group (P < 0.0001) for AFL ablation. Median (IQR) total radiation exposure (μGy·m2) was 1,107 (906, 2,033) MG group versus 2,835 (1,688, 3,855) conventional group (P = 0.0001) for AF ablation, and 161 (65, 537) MG group versus 1,651 (796, 4,569) conventional group (P < 0.0001) for AFL ablation. No difference in total procedural time was seen.
Conclusions
The use of a novel nonfluoroscopic catheter tracking system is associated with a significant reduction in radiation exposure during AF and AFL ablation (61% and 90% reduction, respectively). In the era of heightened awareness of the importance of radiation reduction, this system represents a safe and efficient tool to decrease radiation exposure during electrophysiological ablation procedures.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0147-8389</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1540-8159</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/pace.12611</identifier><identifier>PMID: 25682843</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>ablation ; Atrial Fibrillation - diagnostic imaging ; Atrial Fibrillation - surgery ; Atrial Flutter - diagnostic imaging ; Atrial Flutter - surgery ; Cardiac Catheters ; Catheter Ablation - methods ; electrophysiology - clinical ; Equipment Design ; Equipment Failure Analysis ; Humans ; ICD ; Radiation Dosage ; Radiation Exposure - analysis ; Radiation Protection ; Radiography, Interventional - instrumentation ; Radiography, Interventional - methods ; Reproducibility of Results ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; surgery ; Treatment Outcome</subject><ispartof>Pacing and clinical electrophysiology, 2015-07, Vol.38 (7), p.784-790</ispartof><rights>2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4331-f65e4c0b415abaec0df59bd8bece5e6bcecd7cf6f2adbd7728602304c4dfaf453</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4331-f65e4c0b415abaec0df59bd8bece5e6bcecd7cf6f2adbd7728602304c4dfaf453</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fpace.12611$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fpace.12611$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27901,27902,45550,45551</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25682843$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>MALLIET, NICOLAS</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>ANDRADE, JASON G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>KHAIRY, PAUL</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>NGUYEN THANH, HIEN KIEM</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>VENIER, SANDRINE</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>DUBUC, MARC</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>DYRDA, KATIA</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>GUERRA, PETER</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>MONDÉSERT, BLANDINE</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>RIVARD, LÉNA</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>TADROS, RAFIK</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>TALAJIC, MARIO</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>THIBAULT, BERNARD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>ROY, DENIS</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>MACLE, LAURENT</creatorcontrib><title>Impact of a Novel Catheter Tracking System on Radiation Exposure during the Procedural Phases of Atrial Fibrillation and Flutter Ablation</title><title>Pacing and clinical electrophysiology</title><addtitle>Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology</addtitle><description>Background
Fluoroscopic guidance is used to position catheters during cardiac ablation. We evaluated the impact of a novel nonfluoroscopic sensor‐guided electromagnetic navigation system (MG) on radiation exposure during catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) or atrial flutter (AFL).
Methods
A total of 134 consecutive patients referred for ablation of AF (n = 44) or AFL (n = 90) ablation were prospectively enrolled. In one group the MG system was used for nonfluoroscopic catheter positioning, whereas in the conventional group standard fluoroscopy was utilized. Fluoroscopy times were assessed for each stage of procedure and total radiation exposure was quantified.
Results
Patient characteristics were similar between the groups. The procedural end point was achieved in all. Median (interquartile range [IQR]) fluoroscopy times were 12.5 minutes (7.6, 17.4) MG group versus 21.5 minutes (15.3, 23.0) conventional group (P < 0.0001) for AF ablation, and 0.8 minutes (0.4, 2.5) MG group versus 9.9 minutes (5.1, 22.5) conventional group (P < 0.0001) for AFL ablation. Median (IQR) total radiation exposure (μGy·m2) was 1,107 (906, 2,033) MG group versus 2,835 (1,688, 3,855) conventional group (P = 0.0001) for AF ablation, and 161 (65, 537) MG group versus 1,651 (796, 4,569) conventional group (P < 0.0001) for AFL ablation. No difference in total procedural time was seen.
Conclusions
The use of a novel nonfluoroscopic catheter tracking system is associated with a significant reduction in radiation exposure during AF and AFL ablation (61% and 90% reduction, respectively). In the era of heightened awareness of the importance of radiation reduction, this system represents a safe and efficient tool to decrease radiation exposure during electrophysiological ablation procedures.</description><subject>ablation</subject><subject>Atrial Fibrillation - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Atrial Fibrillation - surgery</subject><subject>Atrial Flutter - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Atrial Flutter - surgery</subject><subject>Cardiac Catheters</subject><subject>Catheter Ablation - methods</subject><subject>electrophysiology - clinical</subject><subject>Equipment Design</subject><subject>Equipment Failure Analysis</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>ICD</subject><subject>Radiation Dosage</subject><subject>Radiation Exposure - analysis</subject><subject>Radiation Protection</subject><subject>Radiography, Interventional - instrumentation</subject><subject>Radiography, Interventional - methods</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><subject>surgery</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><issn>0147-8389</issn><issn>1540-8159</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kc1uEzEUhS0EoiGw4QGQlwhpij3-mckyipJQEZUIikBsLP9cU9OZTLBnoHkE3hoP03aJJcu-V985vjpG6CUl5zSvt0dt4ZyWktJHaEYFJ0VNxeIxmhHKq6Jm9eIMPUvpByFEEi6eorNSyLqsOZuhPxdtlve481jjy-4XNHil-2voIeKrqO1NOHzHn06phxZ3B_xRu6D7kG_r22OXhgjYDXFksgbvY2ch17rB-2udII22yz6G3NgEE0PTTGJ9cHjTDP34ytJMzefoiddNghd35xx93qyvVu-K3YftxWq5KyxnjBZeCuCWGE6FNhoscV4sjKsNWBAgjQXrKuulL7UzrqrKWpKSEW6589pzwebo9eR7jN3PAVKv2pAs5NEO0A1JUblgtGY87zl6M6E2dilF8OoYQ6vjSVGixujVGL36F32GX935DqYF94DeZ50BOgG_QwOn_1ip_XK1vjctJk3IP3D7oNHxRsmKVUJ9udyqr3u5kdtvO_We_QW64qDW</recordid><startdate>201507</startdate><enddate>201507</enddate><creator>MALLIET, NICOLAS</creator><creator>ANDRADE, JASON G.</creator><creator>KHAIRY, PAUL</creator><creator>NGUYEN THANH, HIEN KIEM</creator><creator>VENIER, SANDRINE</creator><creator>DUBUC, MARC</creator><creator>DYRDA, KATIA</creator><creator>GUERRA, PETER</creator><creator>MONDÉSERT, BLANDINE</creator><creator>RIVARD, LÉNA</creator><creator>TADROS, RAFIK</creator><creator>TALAJIC, MARIO</creator><creator>THIBAULT, BERNARD</creator><creator>ROY, DENIS</creator><creator>MACLE, LAURENT</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201507</creationdate><title>Impact of a Novel Catheter Tracking System on Radiation Exposure during the Procedural Phases of Atrial Fibrillation and Flutter Ablation</title><author>MALLIET, NICOLAS ; ANDRADE, JASON G. ; KHAIRY, PAUL ; NGUYEN THANH, HIEN KIEM ; VENIER, SANDRINE ; DUBUC, MARC ; DYRDA, KATIA ; GUERRA, PETER ; MONDÉSERT, BLANDINE ; RIVARD, LÉNA ; TADROS, RAFIK ; TALAJIC, MARIO ; THIBAULT, BERNARD ; ROY, DENIS ; MACLE, LAURENT</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4331-f65e4c0b415abaec0df59bd8bece5e6bcecd7cf6f2adbd7728602304c4dfaf453</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>ablation</topic><topic>Atrial Fibrillation - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Atrial Fibrillation - surgery</topic><topic>Atrial Flutter - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Atrial Flutter - surgery</topic><topic>Cardiac Catheters</topic><topic>Catheter Ablation - methods</topic><topic>electrophysiology - clinical</topic><topic>Equipment Design</topic><topic>Equipment Failure Analysis</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>ICD</topic><topic>Radiation Dosage</topic><topic>Radiation Exposure - analysis</topic><topic>Radiation Protection</topic><topic>Radiography, Interventional - instrumentation</topic><topic>Radiography, Interventional - methods</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><topic>surgery</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>MALLIET, NICOLAS</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>ANDRADE, JASON G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>KHAIRY, PAUL</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>NGUYEN THANH, HIEN KIEM</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>VENIER, SANDRINE</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>DUBUC, MARC</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>DYRDA, KATIA</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>GUERRA, PETER</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>MONDÉSERT, BLANDINE</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>RIVARD, LÉNA</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>TADROS, RAFIK</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>TALAJIC, MARIO</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>THIBAULT, BERNARD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>ROY, DENIS</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>MACLE, LAURENT</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Pacing and clinical electrophysiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>MALLIET, NICOLAS</au><au>ANDRADE, JASON G.</au><au>KHAIRY, PAUL</au><au>NGUYEN THANH, HIEN KIEM</au><au>VENIER, SANDRINE</au><au>DUBUC, MARC</au><au>DYRDA, KATIA</au><au>GUERRA, PETER</au><au>MONDÉSERT, BLANDINE</au><au>RIVARD, LÉNA</au><au>TADROS, RAFIK</au><au>TALAJIC, MARIO</au><au>THIBAULT, BERNARD</au><au>ROY, DENIS</au><au>MACLE, LAURENT</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Impact of a Novel Catheter Tracking System on Radiation Exposure during the Procedural Phases of Atrial Fibrillation and Flutter Ablation</atitle><jtitle>Pacing and clinical electrophysiology</jtitle><addtitle>Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology</addtitle><date>2015-07</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>38</volume><issue>7</issue><spage>784</spage><epage>790</epage><pages>784-790</pages><issn>0147-8389</issn><eissn>1540-8159</eissn><abstract>Background
Fluoroscopic guidance is used to position catheters during cardiac ablation. We evaluated the impact of a novel nonfluoroscopic sensor‐guided electromagnetic navigation system (MG) on radiation exposure during catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) or atrial flutter (AFL).
Methods
A total of 134 consecutive patients referred for ablation of AF (n = 44) or AFL (n = 90) ablation were prospectively enrolled. In one group the MG system was used for nonfluoroscopic catheter positioning, whereas in the conventional group standard fluoroscopy was utilized. Fluoroscopy times were assessed for each stage of procedure and total radiation exposure was quantified.
Results
Patient characteristics were similar between the groups. The procedural end point was achieved in all. Median (interquartile range [IQR]) fluoroscopy times were 12.5 minutes (7.6, 17.4) MG group versus 21.5 minutes (15.3, 23.0) conventional group (P < 0.0001) for AF ablation, and 0.8 minutes (0.4, 2.5) MG group versus 9.9 minutes (5.1, 22.5) conventional group (P < 0.0001) for AFL ablation. Median (IQR) total radiation exposure (μGy·m2) was 1,107 (906, 2,033) MG group versus 2,835 (1,688, 3,855) conventional group (P = 0.0001) for AF ablation, and 161 (65, 537) MG group versus 1,651 (796, 4,569) conventional group (P < 0.0001) for AFL ablation. No difference in total procedural time was seen.
Conclusions
The use of a novel nonfluoroscopic catheter tracking system is associated with a significant reduction in radiation exposure during AF and AFL ablation (61% and 90% reduction, respectively). In the era of heightened awareness of the importance of radiation reduction, this system represents a safe and efficient tool to decrease radiation exposure during electrophysiological ablation procedures.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><pmid>25682843</pmid><doi>10.1111/pace.12611</doi><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0147-8389 |
| ispartof | Pacing and clinical electrophysiology, 2015-07, Vol.38 (7), p.784-790 |
| issn | 0147-8389 1540-8159 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1693183418 |
| source | MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete |
| subjects | ablation Atrial Fibrillation - diagnostic imaging Atrial Fibrillation - surgery Atrial Flutter - diagnostic imaging Atrial Flutter - surgery Cardiac Catheters Catheter Ablation - methods electrophysiology - clinical Equipment Design Equipment Failure Analysis Humans ICD Radiation Dosage Radiation Exposure - analysis Radiation Protection Radiography, Interventional - instrumentation Radiography, Interventional - methods Reproducibility of Results Sensitivity and Specificity surgery Treatment Outcome |
| title | Impact of a Novel Catheter Tracking System on Radiation Exposure during the Procedural Phases of Atrial Fibrillation and Flutter Ablation |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-06T16%3A51%3A51IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Impact%20of%20a%20Novel%20Catheter%20Tracking%20System%20on%20Radiation%20Exposure%20during%20the%20Procedural%20Phases%20of%20Atrial%20Fibrillation%20and%20Flutter%20Ablation&rft.jtitle=Pacing%20and%20clinical%20electrophysiology&rft.au=MALLIET,%20NICOLAS&rft.date=2015-07&rft.volume=38&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=784&rft.epage=790&rft.pages=784-790&rft.issn=0147-8389&rft.eissn=1540-8159&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/pace.12611&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1693183418%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1693183418&rft_id=info:pmid/25682843&rfr_iscdi=true |