Why the study?
Data comparing remote magnetic catheter navigation with manual catheter navigation combined with contact force sensing for atrial fibrillation ablation were lacking.
Does manual catheter navigation with contact force sensing reduce AF recurrence in patients undergoing ablation of atrial fibrillation compared to remote magnetic navigation?
Population
452 patients undergoing 605 ablations of AF
Comparison
RMN ablation vs MCN-CF ablation
Design
Retrospective single-center comparative study
Follow-up
Mean 1.6 ± 1.6 years
Key result
Manual catheter navigation with contact force sensing significantly increased freedom from atrial fibrillation recurrence to 81% compared to 53% with remote magnetic navigation.
Authors
Loading...
MCN-CF linked to lower AF recurrence than RMN; should not change practice pending randomized confirmation.
Cohort (n=452)
No
Does manual catheter navigation with contact force sensing reduce AF recurrence in patients undergoing ablation of atrial fibrillation compared to remote magnetic navigation?
Hazard Ratio: 1.651 (95% CI 1.294–2.106)
Absolute Event Rate: 81% vs 53%
p-value: p=<0.001
Manual catheter navigation with contact force sensing is associated with significantly lower AF recurrence and pulmonary vein reconnection rates compared to remote magnetic navigation.
Schlögl et al. (2024) conducted a cohort in Atrial fibrillation (n=452). Manual catheter navigation with contact force sensing (MCN-CF) vs. Remote magnetic catheter navigation (RMN) was evaluated on Freedom from atrial fibrillation recurrence (HR 1.651, 95% CI 1.294-2.106, p=<0.001). Manual catheter navigation with contact force sensing significantly increased freedom from atrial fibrillation recurrence to 81% compared to 53% with remote magnetic navigation.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: