PURPOSE: In ablation of atrial fibrillation, the single-ring method aims for isolation of the posterior wall of the left atrium (LA) including the pulmonary veins (PVs) but avoiding posterior LA lesions. The aim of this randomized prospective study was to evaluate safety and efficacy of remote magnetic navigation (RMN)-guided single-ring ablation strategy as compared to standard RMN-guided circumferential PV ablation (PVA). METHODS:Eighty consecutive patients undergoing PVA were enrolled prospectively and randomized equally into two study groups. RMN using the Stereotaxis system and open-irrigated 3.5-mm ablation catheters were used with a 3D mapping system in all procedures. Forty patients underwentRMN-guided single-ring ablation, and 40 patients received RMN-guided circumferential PVA. RESULTS: In the circumferential group, 3.3 ± 1.1 PVs were successfully isolated at the end of the procedure as compared to 3.1 ± 1.3 in the single-ring (box) group (p=0.38). All patients in the box group required additional posterior lesions in order to achieve electrical isolation of the PVs. Single-ring ablation was associated with longer procedure duration (p=0.01) and ablation time (p=0.001). After a single procedure, the proportion of patients free of any atrial tachycardia (AT)/atrial fibrillation (AF) episode at 12-month follow-up was 57 % in the box group and 58 % in the circ group. Using RMN, only minor complications have been observed. CONCLUSIONS:RMN-guided single-ring PVA provides comparable acute and long-term success rates as compared to RMN-guided circumferential PVA but requires additional posterior lesions to achieve PV isolation and increased procedure and ablation time. Procedural complication rates are low when using RMN.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: In ablation of atrial fibrillation, the single-ring method aims for isolation of the posterior wall of the left atrium (LA) including the pulmonary veins (PVs) but avoiding posterior LA lesions. The aim of this randomized prospective study was to evaluate safety and efficacy of remote magnetic navigation (RMN)-guided single-ring ablation strategy as compared to standard RMN-guided circumferential PV ablation (PVA). METHODS: Eighty consecutive patients undergoing PVA were enrolled prospectively and randomized equally into two study groups. RMN using the Stereotaxis system and open-irrigated 3.5-mm ablation catheters were used with a 3D mapping system in all procedures. Forty patients underwent RMN-guided single-ring ablation, and 40 patients received RMN-guided circumferential PVA. RESULTS: In the circumferential group, 3.3 ± 1.1 PVs were successfully isolated at the end of the procedure as compared to 3.1 ± 1.3 in the single-ring (box) group (p=0.38). All patients in the box group required additional posterior lesions in order to achieve electrical isolation of the PVs. Single-ring ablation was associated with longer procedure duration (p=0.01) and ablation time (p=0.001). After a single procedure, the proportion of patients free of any atrial tachycardia (AT)/atrial fibrillation (AF) episode at 12-month follow-up was 57 % in the box group and 58 % in the circ group. Using RMN, only minor complications have been observed. CONCLUSIONS:RMN-guided single-ring PVA provides comparable acute and long-term success rates as compared to RMN-guided circumferential PVA but requires additional posterior lesions to achieve PV isolation and increased procedure and ablation time. Procedural complication rates are low when using RMN.
Authors: K R Julian Chun; Erik Wissner; Buelent Koektuerk; Melanie Konstantinidou; Boris Schmidt; Thomas Zerm; Andreas Metzner; Roland Tilz; Sigrid Boczor; Alexander Fuernkranz; Feifan Ouyang; Karl-Heinz Kuck Journal: Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol Date: 2010-07-07
Authors: Daniel Steven; Vivek Y Reddy; Keiichi Inada; Kurt C Roberts-Thomson; Jens Seiler; William G Stevenson; Gregory F Michaud Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2009-11-12 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Luigi Di Biase; Tamer S Fahmy; Dimpi Patel; Rong Bai; Kenneth Civello; Oussama M Wazni; Mohamed Kanj; Claude S Elayi; Chi Keong Ching; Mohamed Khan; Lucie Popova; Robert A Schweikert; Jennifer E Cummings; J David Burkhardt; David O Martin; Mandeep Bhargava; Thomas Dresing; Walid Saliba; Mauricio Arruda; Andrea Natale Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2007-08-13 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: David Tamborero; Lluís Mont; Antonio Berruezo; Maria Matiello; Begoña Benito; Marta Sitges; Barbara Vidal; Teresa M de Caralt; Rosario J Perea; Radu Vatasescu; Josep Brugada Journal: Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol Date: 2008-12-03
Authors: Tilman Maurer; Christian Sohns; Sebastian Deiss; Laura Rottner; Peter Wohlmuth; Bruno Reißmann; Christian H Heeger; Christine Lemes; Johannes Riedl; Francesco Santoro; Shibu Mathew; Andreas Metzner; Feifan Ouyang; Karl-Heinz Kuck; Erik Wissner Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2017-06-10 Impact factor: 1.900
Authors: Prabhat Kumar; Ayotunde M Bamimore; Jennifer D Schwartz; Eugene H Chung; Anil K Gehi; Andy C Kiser; James P Hummel; J Paul Mounsey Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2016-09-23 Impact factor: 5.501