Abstract
This study aims to compare procedural parameters and clinical efficacy of remote magnetic navigation (RMN) vs. manual navigation (MAN) approach for radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). 146 patients with AF were enrolled in the study. In the RMN group (n=57), patients were treated with the CARTO® 3 in combination with the Niobe ES system. In the MAN group (n=89), ablation was performed with the EnSite Velocity and TactiCath™ Quartz catheter with direct contact force measurement. Procedural time, ablation time, fluoroscopy time, radiation dose and ablation counts were measured and compared between the groups. Recurrence of AF was evaluated after 6 months of follow-up. Mean procedure times (236.87±64.31 vs. 147.22±45.19 min, P<0.05), counts of RF applications (74.30±24.77 vs. 49.15±20.33, P<0.05) and total RFA times (4323.39±1426.69 vs. 2780.53±1157.85 s, P<0.05) were all significantly higher in the RMN than in the MAN group, respectively. In the same order, mean X-ray dose (9722.6±7507.4 vs. 8087.9±6051.5 mGy/cm2, P=0.12) and mean total X-ray exposure time (8.07±4.20 vs. 9.54±5.47 min, P=0.08) were not statistically different. At 6-month follow-up, freedom from AF was similar in RMN and MAN group for paroxysmal (60.8% and 73%, respectively, P=0.42) and persistent AF (69.6% and 75.0%, respectively, P=0.77). Due to the fact that mid-term clinical outcomes showed no significant differences in AF recurrences between groups and manual ablation strategy provided more favorable results regarding acute procedural parameters, we can conclude that the remote magnetic navigation is not superior to the manual approach.
Highlights
Radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFA) is the most commonly used invasive treatment strategy for symptomatic, drug-resistant atrial fibrillation (AF)
Due to patient pool heterogeneity in previously reported outcomes, this study aims to compare solely AF ablation performed with Niobe ES and remote magnetic-navigated Navistar® Thermocool® RMT catheter (Biosense Webster Inc) to standard contact force (CF)-guided manual procedure using TactiCathTM Quartz catheter (Abbott Inc)
This retrospective single-center study compared two groups of patients with pharmacoresistant symptomatic AF treated with remote magnetic-navigated (RMN) or MAN catheter ablation, both supported by electroanatomical mapping (EAM)
Summary
Radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFA) is the most commonly used invasive treatment strategy for symptomatic, drug-resistant atrial fibrillation (AF). EAM-guided treatment can be performed with either manual (MAN) or by remote magnetic-navigated (RMN) catheters[4]. Procedure optimization strategy, aimed to increase freedom from AF and focused on CF-guided RFA safety and effectiveness, have been described in previous studies[5,7,8,9]. Despite the fact that the RMN system reduces radiation doses for patients and doctors[13], several previous studies reported that application of RMN was challenging in comparison to manual approach[13,14]. Due to patient pool heterogeneity in previously reported outcomes, this study aims to compare solely AF ablation performed with Niobe ES and remote magnetic-navigated Navistar® Thermocool® RMT catheter (Biosense Webster Inc) to standard CF-guided manual procedure using TactiCathTM Quartz catheter (Abbott Inc)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
