Literature DB >> 20434589

Endo-epicardial ablation of ventricular arrhythmias in the left ventricle with the Remote Magnetic Navigation System and the 3.5-mm open irrigated magnetic catheter: results from a large single-center case-control series.

Luigi Di Biase1, Pasquale Santangeli, Vladimir Astudillo, Sergio Conti, Prasant Mohanty, Sanghamitra Mohanty, Javier E Sanchez, Rodney Horton, Barbara Thomas, J David Burkhardt, Andrea Natale.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Remote magnetic navigation (RMN) has been reported as a feasible and safe mapping and ablation system for treatment of ventricular arrhythmias (VAs). However, the reported success rates have been limited with the 4- and 8-mm catheter tips.
OBJECTIVE: This study sought to report the results in a large series of consecutive patients undergoing radiofrequency (RF) catheter ablation of VAs using the RMN with the 3.5-mm magnetic open-irrigated-tip catheter (OIC).
METHODS: A total of 110 consecutive patients with a clinical history of left VA were included in the study. In all cases, an OIC was utilized for mapping and ablation. When ablation with the RMN catheters failed, a manual OIC was used to eliminate the VA. Postablation pacing maneuvers and isoproterenol were used to verify the inducibility of the VAs. Outcomes were compared with those of a group of 92 consecutive patients undergoing manual ablation by the same operator.
RESULTS: Mapping and ablation with the magnetic OIC were performed in all 110 patients with VA. Ischemic cardiomyopathy was present in 33 (30%), nonischemic in 14 (13%), and in 63 (57%) patients no structural heart disease was present. Endocardial mapping was performed in all patients, whereas both endocardial and epicardial mapping were performed in 36 (33%) patients. Compared with manual ablation, RMN was associated with a longer procedural time (2.9 +/- 1.2 hours vs. 3.3 +/- 1.1 hours, P = 0.004) and RF time (24 +/- 12 minutes vs. 33 +/- 18 minutes, P = 0.005), whereas fluoroscopic time was significantly shorter (35 +/- 22 minutes vs. 26 +/- 14 minutes, P = 0.033). During the procedures, crossover to manual ablation was required in 15 patients (14%). At 11.7 +/- 2.1 months of follow-up in the study group and 18.7 +/- 3.7 months in the manual ablation group, 85% and 86% (P = 0.817) of patients, respectively, were free of VA.
CONCLUSION: This large series of consecutive patients demonstrates that OIC ablation using RMN is effective for the treatment of left VAs. Copyright 2010 Heart Rhythm Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20434589     DOI: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2010.04.036

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Heart Rhythm        ISSN: 1547-5271            Impact factor:   6.343


  13 in total

1.  2019 HRS/EHRA/APHRS/LAHRS expert consensus statement on catheter ablation of ventricular arrhythmias.

Authors:  Edmond M Cronin; Frank M Bogun; Philippe Maury; Petr Peichl; Minglong Chen; Narayanan Namboodiri; Luis Aguinaga; Luiz Roberto Leite; Sana M Al-Khatib; Elad Anter; Antonio Berruezo; David J Callans; Mina K Chung; Phillip Cuculich; Andre d'Avila; Barbara J Deal; Paolo Della Bella; Thomas Deneke; Timm-Michael Dickfeld; Claudio Hadid; Haris M Haqqani; G Neal Kay; Rakesh Latchamsetty; Francis Marchlinski; John M Miller; Akihiko Nogami; Akash R Patel; Rajeev Kumar Pathak; Luis C Saenz Morales; Pasquale Santangeli; John L Sapp; Andrea Sarkozy; Kyoko Soejima; William G Stevenson; Usha B Tedrow; Wendy S Tzou; Niraj Varma; Katja Zeppenfeld
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2020-10       Impact factor: 1.900

2.  Remote magnetic navigation for ventricular ablation: did the machine win this round?

Authors:  J David Burkhardt
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2016-10-08       Impact factor: 1.900

3.  MAGNETIC VT study: a prospective, multicenter, post-market randomized controlled trial comparing VT ablation outcomes using remote magnetic navigation-guided substrate mapping and ablation versus manual approach in a low LVEF population.

Authors:  Luigi Di Biase; Roderick Tung; Tamás Szili-Torok; J David Burkhardt; Peter Weiss; Rene Tavernier; Adam E Berman; Erik Wissner; William Spear; Xu Chen; Petr Neužil; Jan Skoda; Dhanunjaya Lakkireddy; Bruno Schwagten; Ken Lock; Andrea Natale
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2017-01-07       Impact factor: 1.900

4.  2019 HRS/EHRA/APHRS/LAHRS expert consensus statement on catheter ablation of ventricular arrhythmias.

Authors:  Edmond M Cronin; Frank M Bogun; Philippe Maury; Petr Peichl; Minglong Chen; Narayanan Namboodiri; Luis Aguinaga; Luiz Roberto Leite; Sana M Al-Khatib; Elad Anter; Antonio Berruezo; David J Callans; Mina K Chung; Phillip Cuculich; Andre d'Avila; Barbara J Deal; Paolo Della Bella; Thomas Deneke; Timm-Michael Dickfeld; Claudio Hadid; Haris M Haqqani; G Neal Kay; Rakesh Latchamsetty; Francis Marchlinski; John M Miller; Akihiko Nogami; Akash R Patel; Rajeev Kumar Pathak; Luis C Sáenz Morales; Pasquale Santangeli; John L Sapp; Andrea Sarkozy; Kyoko Soejima; William G Stevenson; Usha B Tedrow; Wendy S Tzou; Niraj Varma; Katja Zeppenfeld
Journal:  Europace       Date:  2019-08-01       Impact factor: 5.214

5.  Impact of sex on clinical, procedural characteristics and outcomes of catheter ablation for ventricular arrhythmias according to underlying heart disease.

Authors:  Timmy Pham; Richard Bennett; Juliana Kanawati; Timothy Campbell; Samual Turnbull; Stuart P Thomas; Saurabh Kumar
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2022-03-30       Impact factor: 1.900

Review 6.  The Growing Culture Of A Minimally Fluoroscopic Approach In Electrophysiology Lab.

Authors:  Michela Casella; Eleonora Russo; Francesca Pizzamiglio; Sergio Conti; Ghaliah Al-Mohani; Daniele Colombo; Victor Casula; Yuri D Alessandra; Viviana Biagioli; Corrado Carbucicchio; Stefania Riva; Gaetano Fassini; Massimo Moltrasio; Fabrizio Tundo; Martina Zucchetti; Benedetta Majocchi; Vittoria Marino; Giovanni Forleo; Pasquale Santangeli; Luigi Di Biase; Antonio Dello Russo; Andrea Natale; Claudio Tondo
Journal:  J Atr Fibrillation       Date:  2014-08-31

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

Authors:  Mitsuharu Kawamura; Melvin M Scheinman; Zian H Tseng; Byron K Lee; Gregory M Marcus; Nitish Badhwar
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2016-06-17       Impact factor: 1.900

Review 8.  Safety and efficacy of the remote magnetic navigation for ablation of ventricular tachycardias--a systematic review.

Authors:  Ferdi Akca; Ibrahim Önsesveren; Luc Jordaens; Tamas Szili-Torok
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2011-12-20       Impact factor: 1.900

9.  Remote Navigation for Complex Arrhythmia.

Authors:  Irina Suman-Horduna; Sonya V Babu-Narayan; Sabine Ernst
Journal:  Arrhythm Electrophysiol Rev       Date:  2013-04

10.  Feasibility of remote magnetic navigation for epicardial ablation.

Authors:  P Abraham; L D Abkenari; E C H Peters; T Szili-Torok
Journal:  Neth Heart J       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 2.380

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.