Safety and Long-Term Outcomes of Catheter Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation Using Magnetic Navigation versus Manual Conventional Ablation: A Propensity-Score Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Whether or not the potential advantages of using a magnetic navigation system (MNS) translate into improved outcomes in patients undergoing atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation is a question that remains unanswered. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this observational registry study, we used propensity-score matching to compare the outcomes of patients with symptomatic drug-refractory AF who underwent catheter ablation using MNS with the outcomes of those who underwent catheter ablation using conventional manual navigation. Among 1,035 eligible patients, 287 patients in each group had similar propensity scores and were included in the analysis. The primary efficacy outcome was the rate of AF relapse after a 3-month blanking period. At a mean follow-up of 2.6 ± 1.5 years, AF ablation with MNS was associated with a similar risk of AF relapse as compared with manual navigation (18.4% per year and 22.3% per year, respectively; hazard ratio 0.81, 95% CI 0.63-1.05; P = 0.108). Major complications occurred in two patients (0.7%) using MNS, and in six patients (2.1%) undergoing manually navigated ablation (P = 0.286). Fluoroscopy times were 21 ± 10 minutes in the manual navigation group, and 12 ± 9 minutes in the MNS group (P < 0.001), whereas total procedure times were 152 ± 52 minutes and 213 ± 58 minutes, respectively (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this propensity-score matched comparison, magnetic navigation and conventional manual AF ablations seem to have similar relapse rates and a similar risk of complications. AF ablations with magnetic navigation take longer to perform but expose patients to significantly shorter fluoroscopy times.

Comparison of remote magnetic navigation ablation and manual ablation of idiopathic ventricular arrhythmia after failed manual ablation.

PURPOSE: Catheter ablation for idiopathic ventricular arrhythmia (VA) is effective and safe, but efficacy is frequently limited due to an epicardial origin and difficult anatomy. The remote magnetic navigation (RMN) catheter has a flexible catheter design allowing access to difficult anatomy. We describe the efficacy of the RMN for ablation of idiopathic VA after failed manual ablation. METHODS: Among 235 patients with idiopathic VA referred for catheter ablation, we identified 51 patients who were referred for repeat ablation after a failed manual ablation. We analyzed the clinical characteristics, including the successful ablation site and findings at electrophysiology study, in repeat procedures conducted using RMN as compared with manual ablation. Among these patients, 22 (43 %) underwent repeat ablation with the RMN and 29 (57 %) underwent repeat ablation with a manual ablation. RESULTS: Overall, successful ablation rate was significantly higher using RMN as compared with manual ablation (91 vs. 69 %, P = 0.02). Fluoroscopy time in the RMN was 17 ± 12 min as compared with 43 ± 18 min in the manual ablation (P = 0.009). Successful ablation rate in the posterior right ventricular outflow tract (RVOT) plus posterior-tricuspid annulus was higher with RMN as compared with manual ablation (92 vs. 50 %, P = 0.03). Neither groups exhibited any major complications. CONCLUSIONS: The RMN is more effective in selected patients with recurrent idiopathic VA after failed manual ablation and is associated with less fluoroscopy time. The RMN catheters have a flexible design enabling them to access otherwise difficult anatomy including the posterior tricuspid annulus and posterior RVOT.

Randomized trial comparing robotic to manual ablation for atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) is a physically demanding procedure for the operator, involving radiation exposure, and has limited success rates. Remote robotic navigation (RRN) may offer benefit to the procedure, though only 1 previous small randomized trial has assessed this. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the impact of RRN on 1-year single-procedure success rates. METHODS: RRN was compared to manual ablation in a randomized control trial setting by using an intention-to-treat analysis. RESULTS: A total of 157 patients underwent ablation (116/157 (74%) persistent AF; 67/116 (58%) of these long-standing persistent AF). There were no significant differences between the RRN and manual groups with respect to 1-year single-procedure success rates (19/78 (24%) and 26/78 (33%), respectively; P = .29), acute wide area circumferential ablation reconnection rates, complication rates, or procedure times. On multivariable analysis, fluoroscopy times were significantly shorter in the RRN group. The number of catheter displacements during ablation was lower in the RRN group, as was subjectively assessed operator fatigue. The crossover rate from RRN to manual ablation was 11/78 (14%), mainly secondary to technical problems with the RRN system. A learning curve was evident for RRN ablation: the fluoroscopy and procedure times were significantly lower after the first 10 cases in an operator's experience. CONCLUSION: This randomized trial showed no difference in the success rate for catheter ablation of AF between a RRN and manual approach. The results highlight the learning curve for RRN ablation and suggest that the use of this technology leads to an improvement in fluoroscopy times, catheter stability, and operator fatigue.