Key result
Remote magnetic navigation for ventricular tachycardia ablation was associated with higher acute procedural success compared to manual ablation (80% vs. 60%, P=0.01).
Why the study?
Does remote magnetic navigation-guided catheter ablation improve procedural success and clinical outcomes compared to manual ablation in patients with ventricular tachycardia?
Observational (n=113)
Does remote magnetic navigation-guided catheter ablation improve procedural success and clinical outcomes compared to manual ablation in patients with ventricular tachycardia?
Absolute Event Rate: 80% vs 60%
p-value: p=0.01
Remote magnetic navigation for VT ablation is associated with higher acute procedural success and improved long-term outcomes in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy compared to manual ablation.
May support RMN as alternative for VT ablation; leaves open superiority to manual navigation in randomized trials.
Aims: Remote magnetic navigation (RMN) is a safe and effective means of performing ventricular tachycardia (VT) ablation. It may have advantages over manual catheter ablation due to ease of manoeuvrability and catheter stability. We sought to compare the safety and efficacy of RMN vs. manual VT ablation. Methods and results: Retrospective study of procedural outcomes of 139 consecutive VT ablation procedures (69 RMN, 70 manual ablation) in 113 patients between 2009 and 2015 was performed. Remote magnetic navigation was associated with overall higher acute procedural success (80% vs. 60%, P = 0.01), with a trend to fewer major complications (3% vs. 9% P = 0.09). Seventy-nine patients were followed up for a median of 17.0 [interquartile range (IQR) 3.0-41.0] months for the RMN group and 15.5 (IQR 6.5-30.0) months for manual ablation group. In the ischaemic cardiomyopathy subgroup, RMN was associated with longer survival from the composite endpoint of VT recurrence leading to defibrillator shock, re-hospitalization or repeat catheter ablation and all-cause mortality; single-procedure adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.240 (95% CI 0.070-0.821) P = 0.023, multi-procedure HR 0.170 (95% CI 0.046-0.632) P = 0.002. In patients with implanted defibrillators, multi-procedure VT-free survival was superior with RMN, HR 0.199 (95% CI 0.060-0.657) P = 0.003. Conclusion: Remote magnetic navigation may improve clinical outcomes after catheter ablation of VT in patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy. Further prospective clinical studies are required to confirm these findings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Qian et al. (2018) conducted an observational in Ventricular tachycardia (n=113). Remote magnetic navigation (RMN) vs. Manual catheter ablation was evaluated on Acute procedural success (p=0.01). Remote magnetic navigation for ventricular tachycardia ablation was associated with higher acute procedural success compared to manual ablation (80% vs. 60%, P=0.01).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: