Literature DB >> 26123094

Magnetic guidance versus manual control: comparison of radiofrequency lesion dimensions and evaluation of the effect of heart wall motion in a myocardial phantom.

Abhishek Bhaskaran1,2, M A Tony Barry3,4,5, Sara I Al Raisi3,4, William Chik3,4, Doan Trang Nguyen4,5, Jim Pouliopoulos3,4, Chrishan Nalliah3,4, Roger Hendricks3, Stuart Thomas3,4, Alistair L McEwan5, Pramesh Kovoor3,4, Aravinda Thiagalingam3,4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Magnetic navigation system (MNS) ablation was suspected to be less effective and unstable in highly mobile cardiac regions compared to radiofrequency (RF) ablations with manual control (MC). The aim of the study was to compare the (1) lesion size and (2) stability of MNS versus MC during irrigated RF ablation with and without simulated mechanical heart wall motion.
METHODS: In a previously validated myocardial phantom, the performance of Navistar RMT Thermocool catheter (Biosense Webster, CA, USA) guided with MNS was compared to manually controlled Navistar irrigated Thermocool catheter (Biosense Webster, CA, USA). The lesion dimensions were compared with the catheter in inferior and superior orientation, with and without 6-mm simulated wall motion. All ablations were performed with 40 W power and 30 ml/ min irrigation for 60 s.
RESULTS: A total of 60 ablations were performed. The mean lesion volumes with MNS and MC were 57.5 ± 7.1 and 58.1 ± 7.1 mm(3), respectively, in the inferior catheter orientation (n = 23, p = 0.6), 62.8 ± 9.9 and 64.6 ± 7.6 mm(3), respectively, in the superior catheter orientation (n = 16, p = 0.9). With 6-mm simulated wall motion, the mean lesion volumes with MNS and MC were 60.2 ± 2.7 and 42.8 ± 8.4 mm(3), respectively, in the inferior catheter orientation (n = 11, p = <0.01*), 74.1 ± 5.8 and 54.2 ± 3.7 mm(3), respectively, in the superior catheter orientation (n = 10, p = <0.01*). During 6-mm simulated wall motion, the MC catheter and MNS catheter moved 5.2 ± 0.1 and 0 mm, respectively, in inferior orientation and 5.5 ± 0.1 and 0 mm, respectively, in the superior orientation on the ablation surface.
CONCLUSIONS: The lesion dimensions were larger with MNS compared to MC in the presence of simulated wall motion, consistent with greater catheter stability. However, similar lesion dimensions were observed in the stationary model.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Catheter sliding; Efficacy; Gel tank; Magnetic navigation system; Myocardial phantom; RF ablation; Simulated wall motion; Stability; Stereotaxis

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26123094     DOI: 10.1007/s10840-015-0023-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol        ISSN: 1383-875X            Impact factor:   1.900


  20 in total

Review 1.  Catheter ablation utilizing remote magnetic navigation: a review of applications and outcomes.

Authors:  Jason Bradfield; Roderick Tung; Ravi Mandapati; Noel G Boyle; Kalyanam Shivkumar
Journal:  Pacing Clin Electrophysiol       Date:  2012-04-17       Impact factor: 1.976

2.  Area under the real-time contact force curve (force-time integral) predicts radiofrequency lesion size in an in vitro contractile model.

Authors:  Dipen C Shah; Hendrik Lambert; Hiroshi Nakagawa; Arne Langenkamp; Nicolas Aeby; Giovanni Leo
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol       Date:  2010-09

3.  Biophysical characteristics of radiofrequency lesion formation in vivo: dynamics of catheter tip-tissue contact evaluated by intracardiac echocardiography.

Authors:  J M Kalman; A P Fitzpatrick; J E Olgin; M C Chin; R J Lee; M M Scheinman; M D Lesh
Journal:  Am Heart J       Date:  1997-01       Impact factor: 4.749

4.  The relationship between contact force and clinical outcome during radiofrequency catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation in the TOCCATA study.

Authors:  Vivek Y Reddy; Dipen Shah; Josef Kautzner; Boris Schmidt; Nadir Saoudi; Claudia Herrera; Pierre Jaïs; Gerhard Hindricks; Petr Peichl; Aude Yulzari; Hendrik Lambert; Petr Neuzil; Andrea Natale; Karl-Heinz Kuck
Journal:  Heart Rhythm       Date:  2012-07-20       Impact factor: 6.343

5.  Remote-controlled magnetic pulmonary vein isolation using a new irrigated-tip catheter in patients with atrial fibrillation.

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

6.  Catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation using remote magnetic catheter navigation: a case-control study.

Authors:  Arash Arya; Ruzbeh Zaker-Shahrak; Phillip Sommer; Andreas Bollmann; Ulrike Wetzel; Thomas Gaspar; Sergio Richter; Daniela Husser; Christopher Piorkowski; Gerhard Hindricks
Journal:  Europace       Date:  2010-10-06       Impact factor: 5.214

Review 7.  Remote magnetic with open-irrigated catheter vs. manual navigation for ablation of atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Riccardo Proietti; Valentina Pecoraro; Luigi Di Biase; Andrea Natale; Pasquale Santangeli; Maurizio Viecca; Antonio Sagone; Alessio Galli; Lorenzo Moja; Ludovica Tagliabue
Journal:  Europace       Date:  2013-04-12       Impact factor: 5.214

8.  Magnetic guidance system for cardiac electrophysiology: a prospective trial of safety and efficacy in humans.

Authors:  Mitchell N Faddis; Jane Chen; Judy Osborn; Michael Talcott; Michael E Cain; Bruce D Lindsay
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2003-12-03       Impact factor: 24.094

9.  Remote magnetic navigation with irrigated tip catheter for ablation of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation.

Authors:  Shinsuke Miyazaki; Ashok J Shah; Olivier Xhaët; Nicolas Derval; Seiichiro Matsuo; Matthew Wright; Isabelle Nault; Andrei Forclaz; Amir S Jadidi; Sébastien Knecht; Lena Rivard; Xingpeng Liu; Nick Linton; Frédéric Sacher; Mélèze Hocini; Pierre Jaïs; Michel Haïssaguerre
Journal:  Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol       Date:  2010-10-11

10.  Remote magnetic versus manual catheter navigation for circumferential pulmonary vein ablation in patients with atrial fibrillation.

Authors:  Lars Lüthje; Dirk Vollmann; Joachim Seegers; Marc Dorenkamp; Christian Sohns; Gerd Hasenfuss; Markus Zabel
Journal:  Clin Res Cardiol       Date:  2011-06-25       Impact factor: 5.460

View more
  11 in total

1.  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

2.  The First Evaluation of Remote Magnetic Navigation-Guided Pediatric Ventricular Arrhythmia Ablation.

Authors:  Anna M E Noten; Nawin L Ramdat Misier; Janneke A E Kammeraad; Sip Wijchers; Ingrid M Van Beynum; Michiel Dalinghaus; Thomas B Krasemann; Sing-Chien Yap; Natasja M S de Groot; Tamas Szili-Torok
Journal:  Pediatr Cardiol       Date:  2022-04-29       Impact factor: 1.838

3.  Robotic navigation shows superior improvement in efficiency for atrial fibrillation ablation.

Authors:  Anna Maria Elisabeth Noten; Zsuzsanna Kis; Ferdi Akca; Rohit Bhagwandien; Sip Wijchers; Sing-Chien Yap; Tamas Szili-Torok
Journal:  J Atr Fibrillation       Date:  2019-02-28

4.  The Impact of Left Atrial Size in Catheter Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation Using Remote Magnetic Navigation.

Authors:  Xiao-Yu Liu; Hai-Feng Shi; Jie Zheng; Ku-Lin Li; Xiao-Xi Zhao; Shi-Peng Dang; Ying Wu; Yan Cheng; Xiao-Yan Li; Zhi-Ming Yu; Ru-Xing Wang
Journal:  Cardiol Res Pract       Date:  2018-12-05       Impact factor: 1.866

5.  Remote magnetic navigation shows superior long-term outcomes in pediatric atrioventricular (nodal) tachycardia ablation compared to manual radiofrequency and cryoablation.

Authors:  Anna M E Noten; Janneke A E Kammeraad; Nawin L Ramdat Misier; Sip Wijchers; Ingrid M van Beynum; Michiel Dalinghaus; Thomas B Krasemann; Sing-Chien Yap; Natasja M S de Groot; Tamas Szili-Torok
Journal:  Int J Cardiol Heart Vasc       Date:  2021-10-01

6.  Atrial Fibrillation Ablation Using Robotic Magnetic Navigation Reduces the Incidence of Silent Cerebral Embolism.

Authors:  Jie Zheng; Meng Wang; Qun-Feng Tang; Feng Xue; Ku-Lin Li; Shi-Peng Dang; Xiao-Yu Liu; Xiao-Xi Zhao; Chang-Ying Zhang; Zhi-Ming Yu; Bing Han; Ting-Bo Jiang; Yan Yao; Ru-Xing Wang
Journal:  Front Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2021-12-01

7.  Remote magnetic navigation compared to contemporary manual techniques for the catheter ablation of ventricular arrhythmias in structural heart disease.

Authors:  Richard G Bennett; Timothy Campbell; Ashish Sood; Ashwin Bhaskaran; Kasun De Silva; Lloyd Davis; Pierre Qian; Gopal Sivagangabalan; Mark J Cooper; Clara K Chow; Aravinda Thiagalingam; A Robert Denniss; Stuart P Thomas; Eddy Kizana; Saurabh Kumar
Journal:  Heliyon       Date:  2021-12-06

8.  Introducing a novel catheter-tissue contact feedback feature in robotic navigated catheter ablation: Utility, feasibility, and safety.

Authors:  Anna Maria Elisabeth Noten; Tamas Géczy; Sing-Chien Yap; Zsuzsanna Kis; Tamas Szili-Torok
Journal:  Heart Rhythm O2       Date:  2020-05-11

9.  Comparison of the Mid-Term Outcomes of Robotic Magnetic Navigation-Guided Radiofrequency Ablation versus Cryoballoon Ablation for Persistent Atrial Fibrillation.

Authors:  Xiang Li; Yangyang Bao; Kangni Jia; Ning Zhang; Changjian Lin; Yue Wei; Yun Xie; Qingzhi Luo; Tianyou Ling; Kang Chen; Wenqi Pan; Liqun Wu; Qi Jin
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Dev Dis       Date:  2022-03-17

10.  A Submillimeter Continuous Variable Stiffness Catheter for Compliance Control.

Authors:  Jonas Lussi; Michael Mattmann; Semih Sevim; Fabian Grigis; Carmela De Marco; Christophe Chautems; Salvador Pané; Josep Puigmartí-Luis; Quentin Boehler; Bradley J Nelson
Journal:  Adv Sci (Weinh)       Date:  2021-07-17       Impact factor: 16.806

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.