Efficacy and safety of remote magnetic catheter navigation vs. manual steerable sheath-guided ablation for catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation: a case-control study.

ABSTRACT

AIMS: Data comparing remote magnetic catheter navigation (RMN) to manual catheter navigation (MCN) using steerable sheath for ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) is lacking. The aim of the present case-control study was to seek AF recurrence data after AF ablation using RMN in comparison to MCN using steerable sheath in patients with either paroxysmal or persistent AF. METHODS AND RESULTS: This study comprised 140 patients with AF (50% paroxysmal). Seventy were ablated utilizing RMN and 70 with MCN. Primary endpoint was defined as the time to first recurrence after index procedure. After 28.8 ± 18.9 months of follow-up, more patients in the MCN group using steerable sheath remained free of recurrence compared with RMN group [(59.1 vs. 40%, respectively, P = 0.031), in patients with persistent AF P = 0.057, while in patients with paroxysmal AF, P = 0.18]. Index procedure time (223.6 ± 44.2 vs. 170.8 ± 51.8 min, P < 0.001) and radiofrequency application time (75.4 ± 20.9 vs. 56.6 ± 24.9 min, P < 0.001) were longer in the RMN group; however, the respective total fluoroscopy time (13.7 ± 7.8 vs. 36.6 ± 12.7 min, P < 0.001) was significantly shorter. In multivariable Cox-regression analysis, RMN was the only factor independently associated with shorter time to first recurrence during follow-up (P = 0.048). Complication rate did not differ significantly between groups (P = 0.056), although the incidence of significant pericardial effusion was higher in the MCN group (3 cases vs. 0 in RMN group). CONCLUSION: Although in patients with persistent AF, the recurrence rate is higher in RMN group, the outcome is comparable between RMN and MCN groups in patients with paroxysmal AF. A multicentre prospective randomized study is warranted to clarify this issue.