We have located links that may give you full text access.
Contact force sensing manual catheter versus remote magnetic navigation ablation of atrial fibrillation: a single-center comparison.
Heart and Vessels 2024 January 9
BACKGROUND: Data 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.
METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 452 patients undergoing a total of 605 ablations of AF: 180 patients were ablated using RMN, 272 using MCN-CF.
RESULTS: Except 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).
CONCLUSIONS: In 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.
METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 452 patients undergoing a total of 605 ablations of AF: 180 patients were ablated using RMN, 272 using MCN-CF.
RESULTS: Except 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).
CONCLUSIONS: In 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.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Revascularization Strategy in Myocardial Infarction with Multivessel Disease.Journal of Clinical Medicine 2024 March 27
Intravenous infusion of dexmedetomidine during the surgery to prevent postoperative delirium and postoperative cognitive dysfunction undergoing non-cardiac surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.European Journal of Medical Research 2024 April 19
The Tricuspid Valve: A Review of Pathology, Imaging, and Current Treatment Options: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.Circulation 2024 April 26
Consensus Statement on Vitamin D Status Assessment and Supplementation: Whys, Whens, and Hows.Endocrine Reviews 2024 April 28
Management of Diverticulitis: A Review.JAMA Surgery 2024 April 18
Interstitial Lung Disease: A Review.JAMA 2024 April 23
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app