Key result
Remote magnetic navigation cuts post-ablation hs-cTnT release ~45% vs manual ablation in AVNRT.
Why the study?
The extent of myocardial damage induced by different catheter ablation methods for AVNRT and their comparative impact on troponin release was unclear.
Does remote magnetic navigation reduce hs-cTnT release compared to manually guided catheter ablation in patients undergoing AVNRT ablation?
RCT (n=70)
Randomized
Does remote magnetic navigation reduce hs-cTnT release compared to manually guided catheter ablation in patients undergoing AVNRT ablation?
Remote magnetic navigation for AVNRT ablation results in less myocardial damage (lower hs-cTnT release) compared to manual ablation, despite longer ablation times.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
RMN ablation linked to lower hs-cTnT release than manual in AVNRT; leaves open whether this affects outcomes or should guide method choice.
OBJECTIVES: Catheter ablation is regarded as first-line therapy for symptomatic atrioventricular nodal reentry tachycardia (AVNRT). Ablation induces intended myocardial damage and the extent of myocardial damage may differ between ablation methods. The objective of this MAGMA AVNRT(NCT00875914) substudy was to compare high-sensitive cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT) levels as a surrogate marker for myocardial damage after manually guided (MAN) AVNRT ablation versus AVNRT ablation using remote magnetic navigation (RMN). DESIGN: In total, 70 patients (mean age 44 ± 14 years, 26% male) undergoing catheter ablation for AVNRT in the MagMa-AVNRT-Trial were randomized to remote magnetic navigation (n = 34, 49%) or manually guided catheter ablation (n = 36, 51%). hs-cTnT was measured the day after the procedure. RESULTS: The median follow-up time was 6.2 ± 1.1 years. Acute success was 100% in both groups. hs-cTnT release was significantly lower in the remote magnetic navigation group (52 ng/L versus 95 ng/L, p < .01), even though the ablation time was longer and number of applications was higher with remote magnetic navigation (4.2 min vs 2.8 min, p = .017; 4.9 vs 3.3 applications, p = .01). hs-cTnT released per minute ablation time was also lower with remote magnetic navigation (12 ng/L versus 34 ng/L, p < .01). Both groups exhibited similar clinical long-term follow up regarding recurrence and complications. CONCLUSION: Remote magnetic navigation controlled catheter ablation of AVNRT has similar clinical outcome, but leads to less hs-cTnT release than manually guided catheter ablation. This might correspond to less unintended myocardial damage with RMN, which might be advantageous in complex ablation procedures.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kringeland et al. (2018) conducted an RCT in Atrioventricular nodal reentry tachycardia (AVNRT) (n=70). Remote magnetic navigation (RMN) catheter ablation vs. Manually guided (MAN) catheter ablation was evaluated on High-sensitive cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT) levels measured the day after the procedure (p=<0.01). Remote magnetic navigation for AVNRT ablation resulted in significantly lower hs-cTnT release compared to manually guided ablation (52 ng/L vs 95 ng/L, p<0.01).
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: