Key result
Remote magnetic navigation for right ventricular outflow tract arrhythmia ablation yielded similar acute procedural success compared to manual control (80% vs 74%, P=0.46) but significantly reduced fluoroscopic time.
Why the study?
Does remote magnetic navigation improve procedural outcomes and success rates compared to manual catheter control in patients undergoing RVOT PVC/VT ablation?
Cohort (n=75)
Yes
Does remote magnetic navigation improve procedural outcomes and success rates compared to manual catheter control in patients undergoing RVOT PVC/VT ablation?
Absolute Event Rate: 80% vs 74%
p-value: p=0.46
Remote magnetic navigation for RVOT arrhythmia ablation significantly reduces fluoroscopy time compared to manual control, while maintaining similar acute and chronic success rates.
May reduce fluoroscopy exposure in RVOT ablation; leaves open whether remote navigation improves outcomes in randomized trials.
Aims: Remote magnetic navigation (RMN) is an alternative to manual catheter control (MCC) radiofrequency ablation of right ventricular outflow tract (RVOT) arrhythmias. The data to support RMN approach is limited. We aimed to investigate the clinical and procedural outcomes in a cohort of patients undergoing RVOT premature ventricular complex/ventricular tachycardia (PVCs/VT) ablation procedures using RMN vs. MCC. Methods and results: Data was collected from two centres. Eighty-nine consecutive RVOT PVCs/VT ablation procedures were performed in 75 patients; RMN: 42 procedures and MCC: 47 procedures. CARTOXPTM or CARTO3 (Biosense Webster) was used for endocardial mapping in 19/42 (45%) in RMN group and 28/47 (60%) in MCC group; EnSiteTM NavXTM (St. Jude Medical) was used in the rest of the cohort. Stereotaxis platform (Stereotaxis Inc., St. Louis, MO, USA) was used for RMN approach. Procedural time was 113 ± 53 min in the RMN group and 115 ± 69 min in MCC (P = 0.90). Total fluoroscopic time was 10.9 ± 5.8 vs. 20.5 ± 13.8 (P < 0.05) and total ablation energy application time 7.0 ± 4.7 vs 11.9 ± 16 (P = 0.67) accordingly. There were two complications in RMN group and five in MCC (P = 0.43). Acute procedural success rate was 80% in RMN vs. 74% in MCC group (P = 0.46). After a median follow-up of 25 months (interquartile range 13-34), the success rate remained 55% in the RMN group and 53% in MCC (P = 0.96). Conclusion: Right ventricular outflow tract arrhythmia ablations were performed using half of fluoroscopic times with Stereotaxis platform RMN compared to manual approach. Acute and chronic success rates as well as complication rates were not significantly different.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shauer et al. (2018) conducted a cohort in Right ventricular outflow tract arrhythmias (PVCs/VT) (n=75). Remote magnetic navigation vs. Manual catheter control was evaluated on Acute procedural success rate (p=0.46). Remote magnetic navigation for right ventricular outflow tract arrhythmia ablation yielded similar acute procedural success compared to manual control (80% vs 74%, P=0.46) but significantly reduced fluoroscopic time.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: