Literature DB >> 28600672

Significant reduction in procedure duration in remote magnetic-guided catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation using the third-generation magnetic navigation system.

Tilman Maurer1, Christian Sohns2, Sebastian Deiss2, Laura Rottner2, Peter Wohlmuth2, Bruno Reißmann2, Christian H Heeger2, Christine Lemes2, Johannes Riedl2, Francesco Santoro2, Shibu Mathew2, Andreas Metzner2, Feifan Ouyang2, Karl-Heinz Kuck2, Erik Wissner2,3.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The magnetic navigation system (MNS) has shown to be safe and effective for catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF). However, longer procedure duration as compared to manual catheter ablation may limit its widespread use. This study aimed to assess the impact of the newest generation MNS using an optimized mapping and ablation protocol on the efficacy and safety of remote magnetic catheter (RMC)-guided pulmonary vein isolation (PVI).
METHODS: This observational study included 52 patients with symptomatic AF who underwent RMC-guided PVI using the second-generation MNS Niobe II (initial 28 patients, group I) or the third-generation MNS Niobe ES in combination with an optimized mapping and ablation protocol (24 patients, group II).
RESULTS: Acute PVI was achieved in 26/28 (93%) patients in group I and 24/24 patients (100%) in group II. Mean procedure time was 263.9 ± 81.9 min in group I and significantly lower in group II (139.7 ± 22.6 min, p < 0.01). Mean fluoroscopy time was 18.8 ± 8.7 min in group I and decreased to 7.9 ± 2.6 in group II (p < 0.01). After a median follow-up of 640.5 days (Q1 460.75; Q3 766.5), 16/24 (67%) patients undergoing RMC-guided PVI in group II remained in stable SR. No periprocedural complications were noted for either group.
CONCLUSIONS: Use of the third-generation MNS for RMC-guided PVI is safe, effective, and drastically reduced procedure times.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Atrial fibrillation; Catheter ablation; Magnetic navigation; Pulmonary vein isolation

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28600672     DOI: 10.1007/s10840-017-0261-7

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


  19 in total

Review 1.  2014 AHA/ACC/HRS guideline for the management of patients with atrial fibrillation: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the Heart Rhythm Society.

Authors:  Craig T January; L Samuel Wann; Joseph S Alpert; Hugh Calkins; Joaquin E Cigarroa; Joseph C Cleveland; Jamie B Conti; Patrick T Ellinor; Michael D Ezekowitz; Michael E Field; Katherine T Murray; Ralph L Sacco; William G Stevenson; Patrick J Tchou; Cynthia M Tracy; Clyde W Yancy
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2014-03-28       Impact factor: 24.094

2.  Remote magnetic navigation for circumferential pulmonary vein ablation: single-catheter technique or additional use of a circular mapping catheter?

Authors:  Dirk Vollmann; Lars Lüthje; Joachim Seegers; Christian Sohns; Samuel Sossalla; Jan Sohns; Christian Röver; Gerd Hasenfuß; Markus Zabel
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2014-06-04       Impact factor: 1.900

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

Authors:  Emmanuel Koutalas; Livio Bertagnolli; Phillip Sommer; Sergio Richter; Sascha Rolf; Ole Breithardt; Andreas Bollmann; Gerhard Hindricks; Arash Arya
Journal:  Europace       Date:  2014-10-21       Impact factor: 5.214

4.  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

5.  A Comparison of Remote Magnetic Irrigated Tip Ablation versus Manual Catheter Irrigated Tip Catheter Ablation With and Without Force Sensing Feedback.

Authors:  J Peter Weiss; Heidi T May; Tami L Bair; Brian G Crandall; Michael J Cutler; John D Day; Jeffrey S Osborn; Charles Mallender; T Jared Bunch
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol       Date:  2016-03

Review 6.  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

7.  Single-ring ablation compared with standard circumferential pulmonary vein isolation using remote magnetic catheter navigation.

Authors:  Christian Sohns; Leonard Bergau; Joachim Seegers; Lars Lüthje; Dirk Vollmann; Markus Zabel
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2014-06-19       Impact factor: 1.900

8.  Initial experience with remote catheter ablation using a novel magnetic navigation system: magnetic remote catheter ablation.

Authors:  Sabine Ernst; Feifan Ouyang; Christian Linder; Klaus Hertting; Fabian Stahl; Julian Chun; Hitoshi Hachiya; Dietmar Bänsch; Matthias Antz; Karl-Heinz Kuck
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2004-03-15       Impact factor: 29.690

9.  Cryoballoon or Radiofrequency Ablation for Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation.

Authors:  Karl-Heinz Kuck; Josep Brugada; Alexander Fürnkranz; Andreas Metzner; Feifan Ouyang; K R Julian Chun; Arif Elvan; Thomas Arentz; Kurt Bestehorn; Stuart J Pocock; Jean-Paul Albenque; Claudio Tondo
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2016-04-04       Impact factor: 91.245

10.  Bonus-freeze: benefit or risk? Two-year outcome and procedural comparison of a "bonus-freeze" and "no bonus-freeze" protocol using the second-generation cryoballoon for pulmonary vein isolation.

Authors:  Christian-H Heeger; Erik Wissner; Peter Wohlmuth; Shibu Mathew; Kentaro Hayashi; Christian Sohns; Bruno Reißmann; Christine Lemes; Tilman Maurer; Ardan M Saguner; Francesco Santoro; Johannes Riedl; Feifan Ouyang; Karl-Heinz Kuck; Andreas Metzner
Journal:  Clin Res Cardiol       Date:  2016-04-16       Impact factor: 5.460

View more
  3 in total

1.  Comparisons of efficacy, safety, and recurrence risk factors of paroxysmal and persistent atrial fibrillation catheter ablation using robotic magnetic navigation system.

Authors:  Xiao-Xi Zhao; Ku-Lin Li; Ru-Xing Wang; Jie Zheng; Xiao-Yu Liu; Shi-Peng Dang; Zhi-Ming Yu; Chang-Ying Zhang; Xiang-Jun Yang
Journal:  Clin Cardiol       Date:  2019-03-15       Impact factor: 2.882

2.  Procedural outcomes and learning curve of cardiac arrhythmias catheter ablation using remote magnetic navigation: Experience from a large-scale single-center study.

Authors:  Xiang Li; Qi Jin; Ning Zhang; Tianyou Ling; Changjian Lin; Kangni Jia; Yangyang Bao; Yun Xie; Yue Wei; Kang Chen; Wenqi Pan; Yucai Xie; Liqun Wu
Journal:  Clin Cardiol       Date:  2020-05-26       Impact factor: 2.882

Review 3.  Catheter Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation: State of the Art and Future Perspectives.

Authors:  Laura Rottner; Barbara Bellmann; Tina Lin; Bruno Reissmann; Tobias Tönnis; Ruben Schleberger; Moritz Nies; Christiane Jungen; Leon Dinshaw; Niklas Klatt; Jannis Dickow; Paula Münkler; Christian Meyer; Andreas Metzner; Andreas Rillig
Journal:  Cardiol Ther       Date:  2020-01-02
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.