Key result
Robotic magnetic navigation-guided ablation of papillary muscle ventricular arrhythmias achieved similar acute success to manual ablation (74% vs 73%, P=1.000) with lower fluoroscopy times.
Why the study?
Does robotic magnetic navigation-guided catheter ablation improve acute success or reduce fluoroscopy time compared to manual ablation in patients with papillary muscle ventricular arrhythmias?
Cohort (n=35)
Does robotic magnetic navigation-guided catheter ablation improve acute success or reduce fluoroscopy time compared to manual ablation in patients with papillary muscle ventricular arrhythmias?
Absolute Event Rate: 74% vs 73%
p-value: p=1.000
Robotic magnetic navigation-guided ablation of papillary muscle ventricular arrhythmias yields comparable acute success to manual ablation but significantly reduces fluoroscopy time and reliance on retrograde transaortic access.
RMN may match manual ablation success with less fluoroscopy for PM VAs; leaves open need for randomized trials on durability and safety.
Aims: Due to the complex anatomy of the left ventricular (LV) and right ventricular (RV) papillary muscles (PMs), PM ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) can be challenging to target with ablation. We sought to compare the outcomes of robotic magnetic navigation-guided (RMN) ablation and manual ablation of VAs arising from the LV and RV PMs. Methods and results: We evaluated 35 consecutive patients (mean age 65 ± 12 years, 69% male) who underwent catheter ablation of 38 VAs originating from the LV and RV PMs as confirmed by intracardiac echocardiography. Catheter ablation was initially performed using RMN-guidance in 24 (69%) patients and manual guidance in 11 (31%) patients. Demographic and procedural data were recorded and compared between the two groups. The VA sites of origin were mapped to 20 (53%) anterolateral LV PMs, 14 (37%) posteromedial LV PMs, and 4 (11%) RV PMs Acute successful ablation was achieved for 20 (74%) VAs using RMN-guided ablation and 8 (73%) VAs using manual ablation (P = 1.000). Fluoroscopy times were significantly lower among patients undergoing RMN ablation compared to patients undergoing manual ablation [median 7.3, interquartile range (IQR) 3.9-18 vs. 24 (16-44) min; P = 0.005]. Retrograde transaortic approach was used in 1 (4%) RMN patients and 5 (46%) manual patients (P = 0.005). No procedural complications were seen in study patients. Conclusion: Use of an RMN-guided approach to target PM VAs results in comparable success rates seen with manual ablation but with lower fluoroscopy times and decreased use of transaortic retrograde access.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bassil et al. (2018) conducted a cohort in Ventricular arrhythmias arising from the papillary muscles (n=35). Robotic magnetic navigation-guided (RMN) ablation vs. Manual ablation was evaluated on Acute successful ablation (p=1.000). Robotic magnetic navigation-guided ablation of papillary muscle ventricular arrhythmias achieved similar acute success to manual ablation (74% vs 73%, P=1.000) with lower fluoroscopy times.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: