A Comparison of Remote Magnetic Irrigated Tip Ablation versus Manual Catheter Irrigated Tip Catheter Ablation With and Without Force Sensing Feedback
Key result
Remote magnetic navigation for AF ablation significantly reduced fluoroscopy time compared to manual ablation (8.47 vs. 9.63 minutes, P<0.0001), with similar clinical outcomes.
Why the study?
Does remote magnetic navigation improve clinical outcomes compared to manual catheter ablation in patients with atrial fibrillation?
Population
627 patients undergoing catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation, mean age 65.1 ± 10.7 years, 64.1% male…
Comparison
Remote magnetic navigation (RMN) catheter ablation vs Manual irrigated tip catheter ablation
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
1 and 3 years
Authors
Discussion
Loading...
Member takes
Implication
MCN-CF linked to higher AF-free survival than RMN; leaves open whether randomized trials would confirm.
Study Design
Type
Cohort (n=627)
Multicenter
No
Structured PICO
Does remote magnetic navigation improve clinical outcomes compared to manual catheter ablation in patients with atrial fibrillation?
P
Population
627 patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing catheter ablation, followed for up to 3 years to compare remote magnetic navigation and manual ablation.
E
Exposure
Remote magnetic navigation (RMN) catheter ablation
C
Comparator
Manual irrigated tip catheter ablation (with a subgroup of 59 patients treated with contact force sensing)
O
Outcome
1- and 3-year endpoints including death, HF hospitalization, stroke, TIA, and atrial flutter or AF recurrencecomposite
Remote magnetic navigation for AF ablation yields similar clinical efficacy and safety to manual ablation but significantly reduces fluoroscopy time.
Cite This Study
Weiss et al. (2016) conducted a cohort in Atrial fibrillation (n=627). Remote magnetic navigation (RMN) ablation vs. Manual irrigated tip catheter ablation was evaluated on Death, heart failure hospitalization, stroke, TIA, and atrial flutter or AF recurrence at 1 and 3 years. Remote magnetic navigation for AF ablation significantly reduced fluoroscopy time compared to manual ablation (8.47 vs. 9.63 minutes, P<0.0001), with similar clinical outcomes.