Key result
Catheter ablation of premature ventricular contractions using EnSite Precision with remote magnetic navigation yielded similar acute success (90.9% vs 90.5%, P=0.961) compared to CARTO 3.
Why the study?
Remote magnetic navigation is often combined with 3D mapping, but the feasibility and effectiveness of combining it with the EnSite Precision mapping system for catheter ablation of PVCs compared to CARTO 3 required investigation.
Does EnSite Precision combined with RMN improve procedural outcomes and success rates compared to CARTO 3 with RMN in patients undergoing catheter ablation for PVCs?
Cohort (n=43)
Does EnSite Precision combined with RMN improve procedural outcomes and success rates compared to CARTO 3 with RMN in patients undergoing catheter ablation for PVCs?
Absolute Event Rate: 90.9% vs 90.5%
p-value: p=0.961
The EnSite Precision mapping system combined with remote magnetic navigation is a feasible, safe, and effective alternative to CARTO 3 for catheter ablation of premature ventricular contractions, yielding comparable procedural metrics and success rates.
Comparable acute success supports system interchangeability in PVC ablation; leaves open long-term efficacy and randomized validation.
Background Remote magnetic navigation ( RMN ) is often used in combination with a 3‐dimensional mapping system to perform catheter ablations. This study aim to investigate the feasibility and effectiveness of a novel 3D‐mapping system, EnSite Precision, combined with RMN for catheter ablation of premature ventricular contractions ( PVC s), and compared it to the procedures performed by CARTO 3 with RMN . Methods Forty‐three consecutive PVC patients were either ablated with the guidance of EnSite Precision (n = 22) or CARTO (n = 21) navigated by RMN . Procedure‐related details, acute and long‐term success were assessed. Results Patient characteristics between both the groups were similar (age: 47.1 ± 19.8 vs 47.1 ± 12.7, female: 63.6% vs 57.1%). No significant difference was found in the procedure time (99.5 ± 30.4 vs 92.9 ± 24.8 min, P = 0.436), mapping time (18.6 ± 12.8 vs 15.5 ± 10.2 min, P = 0.390), radiofrequency ablation time (333.4 ± 267.0 vs 469.3 ± 343.1 s, P = 0.154), fluoroscopy time (4.0 ± 1.9 vs 3.8 ± 2.0 min, P = 0.635), and X‐ray dose (1.8 ± 1.4 vs 2.0 ± 1.2 Gycm 2 , P = 0.649) between the two groups. No significant procedural complication occurred in either group. In addition, there was no significant differences regarding the acute success rate (90.9% vs 90.5%, P = 0.961) and long‐term success rate (86.4% vs 81.0%, P = 0.631) after 16.2 ± 6.2 months of follow‐up between the two groups. Conclusions RMN combined with EnSite Precision mapping system is effective and safe for catheter ablation of PVC s.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dang et al. (2019) conducted a cohort in Premature ventricular contractions (n=43). EnSite Precision mapping system with remote magnetic navigation vs. CARTO 3 mapping system with remote magnetic navigation was evaluated on Acute success rate (p=0.961). Catheter ablation of premature ventricular contractions using EnSite Precision with remote magnetic navigation yielded similar acute success (90.9% vs 90.5%, P=0.961) compared to CARTO 3.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: