Advanced

Long-term outcomes of the current remote magnetic catheter navigation technique for ablation of atrial fibrillation

Yuan, Shiwen LU ; Holmqvist, Fredrik LU ; Kongstad Rasmussen, Ole LU ; Jensen, Steen M.; Wang, Lingwei LU ; Ljungström, Erik; Hertervig, Eva LU and Borgquist, Rasmus LU (2017) In Scandinavian Cardiovascular Journal1997-01-01+01:00 p.1-8
Abstract

Objectives. Comparisons between remote magnetic (RMN) and manual catheter navigation for atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation have earlier been reported with controversial results. However, these reports were based on earlier generations of the RMN system. Design. To evaluate the outcomes of the most current RMN system for AF ablation in a larger patient population with longer follow-up time, 112 patients with AF (78 paroxysmal, 34 persistent) who underwent AF ablation utilizing RMN (RMN group) were compared to 102 AF ablation patients (72 paroxysmal, 30 persistent) utilizing manual technique (Manual group). Results. The RMN group was associated with significantly shorter fluoroscopy time (10.4 ± 6.4 vs. 16.3 ± 10.9 min, p < .001) but... (More)

Objectives. Comparisons between remote magnetic (RMN) and manual catheter navigation for atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation have earlier been reported with controversial results. However, these reports were based on earlier generations of the RMN system. Design. To evaluate the outcomes of the most current RMN system for AF ablation in a larger patient population with longer follow-up time, 112 patients with AF (78 paroxysmal, 34 persistent) who underwent AF ablation utilizing RMN (RMN group) were compared to 102 AF ablation patients (72 paroxysmal, 30 persistent) utilizing manual technique (Manual group). Results. The RMN group was associated with significantly shorter fluoroscopy time (10.4 ± 6.4 vs. 16.3 ± 10.9 min, p < .001) but used more RF energy (64.1 ± 19.4KJ vs. 54.3 ± 24.1 KJ, p < .05), while total procedure time showed no significant difference (201 ± 35 vs. 196 ± 44 min, NS). After 39 ± 9/44 ± 10 months of follow-up, AF-free rates at 1year, 2 years and 3.5 years post ablation were 63%, 46% and 42% in the RMN group vs. 60%, 32% and 30% (survival analysis p < .05) in the Manual group, whereas clinically effective rates were 82%, 73% and 70% for the former vs. 70%, 56% and 49% for the latter (survival analysis p < .005). Conclusion. Differing from previous reports, our data from a larger patient population and longer follow-up time demonstrates that compared to manual technique, the most current RMN technique is associated with better procedural and clinical outcomes for AF ablation.

(Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
epub
subject
keywords
ablation, Atrial fibrillation, long-term outcome, remote magnetic navigation
in
Scandinavian Cardiovascular Journal1997-01-01+01:00
pages
8 pages
publisher
Taylor & Francis
external identifiers
  • scopus:85030170982
  • wos:000416015000003
ISSN
1401-7431
DOI
10.1080/14017431.2017.1384566
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
1710e1d5-6ad8-4177-b60d-443d0e5d0dd2
date added to LUP
2017-10-25 15:27:45
date last changed
2018-01-16 13:24:09
@article{1710e1d5-6ad8-4177-b60d-443d0e5d0dd2,
  abstract     = {<p>Objectives. Comparisons between remote magnetic (RMN) and manual catheter navigation for atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation have earlier been reported with controversial results. However, these reports were based on earlier generations of the RMN system. Design. To evaluate the outcomes of the most current RMN system for AF ablation in a larger patient population with longer follow-up time, 112 patients with AF (78 paroxysmal, 34 persistent) who underwent AF ablation utilizing RMN (RMN group) were compared to 102 AF ablation patients (72 paroxysmal, 30 persistent) utilizing manual technique (Manual group). Results. The RMN group was associated with significantly shorter fluoroscopy time (10.4 ± 6.4 vs. 16.3 ± 10.9 min, p &lt; .001) but used more RF energy (64.1 ± 19.4KJ vs. 54.3 ± 24.1 KJ, p &lt; .05), while total procedure time showed no significant difference (201 ± 35 vs. 196 ± 44 min, NS). After 39 ± 9/44 ± 10 months of follow-up, AF-free rates at 1year, 2 years and 3.5 years post ablation were 63%, 46% and 42% in the RMN group vs. 60%, 32% and 30% (survival analysis p &lt; .05) in the Manual group, whereas clinically effective rates were 82%, 73% and 70% for the former vs. 70%, 56% and 49% for the latter (survival analysis p &lt; .005). Conclusion. Differing from previous reports, our data from a larger patient population and longer follow-up time demonstrates that compared to manual technique, the most current RMN technique is associated with better procedural and clinical outcomes for AF ablation.</p>},
  author       = {Yuan, Shiwen and Holmqvist, Fredrik and Kongstad Rasmussen, Ole and Jensen, Steen M. and Wang, Lingwei and Ljungström, Erik and Hertervig, Eva and Borgquist, Rasmus},
  issn         = {1401-7431},
  keyword      = {ablation,Atrial fibrillation,long-term outcome,remote magnetic navigation},
  language     = {eng},
  month        = {09},
  pages        = {1--8},
  publisher    = {Taylor & Francis},
  series       = {Scandinavian Cardiovascular Journal1997-01-01+01:00},
  title        = {Long-term outcomes of the current remote magnetic catheter navigation technique for ablation of atrial fibrillation},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14017431.2017.1384566},
  year         = {2017},
}