Contact force sensing manual catheter versus remote magnetic navigation ablation of atrial fibrillation: a single-center comparison

Abstract

BackgroundData comparing remote magnetic catheter navigation (RMN) with manual catheter navigation in combination with contact force sensing (MCN-CF) ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) is lacking. The primary aim of the present retrospective comparative study was to compare the outcome of RMN versus (vs.) MCN-CF ablation of AF with regards to AF recurrence. Secondary aim was to analyze periprocedural risk, ablation characteristics and repeat procedures.MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed 452 patients undergoing a total of 605 ablations of AF: 180 patients were ablated using RMN, 272 using MCN-CF.ResultsExcept body mass index there was no significant difference between groups at baseline. After a mean 1.6 ± 1.6 years of follow-up and 1.3 ± 0.4 procedures, 81% of the patients in the MCN-CF group remained free of AF recurrence compared to 53% in the RMN group (P < 0.001). After analysis of 153 repeat ablations (83 MCN-RF vs. 70 RMN; P = 0.18), there was a significantly higher reconnection rate of pulmonary veins after RMN ablation (P < 0.001). In multivariable Cox-regression analysis, RMN ablation (P < 0.001) and left atrial diameter (P = 0.013) was an independent risk factor for AF recurrence. Procedure time, radiofrequency application time and total fluoroscopy time and fluoroscopy dose were higher in the RMN group without difference in total number of ablation points. Complication rates did not differ significantly between groups (P = 0.722).ConclusionsIn our retrospective comparative study, the AF recurrence rate and pulmonary vein reconnection rate is significantly lower with more favorable procedural characteristics and similar complication rate utilizing MCN-CF compared to RMN.