Remote magnetic navigation compared to contemporary manual techniques for the catheter ablation of ventricular arrhythmias in structural heart disease

Abstract

BackgroundThere are limited data comparing remote magnetic navigation (RMN) to contemporary techniques of manual-guided ventricular arrhythmia (VA) catheter ablation. ObjectivesWe compared acute and long-term outcomes of VA ablation guided by either RMN or contemporary manual techniques in patients with structural heart disease. MethodsFrom 2010–2019, 192 consecutive patients, with ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) or non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) underwent catheter ablation for sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) or premature ventricular complexes (PVCs), using either RMN (n = 60) or manual (n = 132) guided techniques. Acute success and VA-free survival were compared. ResultsIn ICM, acute procedural success was comparable between the 2 techniques (manual 43.5% vs. RMN 29%, P = 0.11), as was VA-free survival (manual 83% vs. RMN 74%, P = 0.88), and survival free from cardiac transplantation and all-cause mortality (manual 88% vs. RMN 87%, P = 0.47), both at 12-months after final ablation. In NICM, manual compared to RMN guided, had superior acute procedural success (manual 46% vs. RMN 19%, P = 0.003) and VA-free survival 12-months after final ablation (manual 79% vs. RMN 41%, P = 0.004), but comparable survival free from cardiac transplantation and all-cause mortality 12-months after final ablation (manual 95% vs. RMN 90%, P = 0.52). Procedural duration was shorter in both subgroups undergoing manual guided ablation, whereas fluoroscopy dose and complication rates were comparable. ConclusionRMN provides similar outcomes to manual ablation in patients with ICM. In NICM however, acute success, and long-term VA-free survival was better with manual ablation. Prospective, multi-centre randomised trials comparing contemporary manual and RMN systems for VA catheter ablation are needed.