Kangni Jia1, Qi Jin2, Ao Liu1, Liqun Wu1. 1. Department of Cardiology, Shanghai Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China. 2. Department of Cardiology, Shanghai Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China. Electronic address: jinqi127@163.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this review was to evaluate the efficacy and safety between remote magnetic navigation (RMN) and manual control navigation (MCN) for atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation. METHODS: We searched the PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane library databases using the key words AF, ablation and magnetic navigation. RESULTS: Eighteen studies were identified in this analysis including 4046 patients comparing RMN and MCN in AF ablation, which were all non-randomized controlled studies. No significant difference of AF recurrence rate (40% vs. 38%, OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.82-1.22, p = 0. 97) and acute success rate in achieving pulmonary vein isolation (91% vs. 93%, OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.16-1.17, p = 0.10) was found between RMN and MCN. However, compared with MCN, RMN was associated with significantly lower complication rate (2% vs. 5%, OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.28-0.69, p = 0. 0003) and shorter fluoroscopy time (MD -9.71 min, 95% CI -15.80 to -3.63, p = 0.002). Procedure time (MD 47.05 min, 95% CI 27.5-66.58, p < 0.00001) and ablation time (MD 15.90 min, 95% CI 9.62-22.18, p < 0.00001) of RMN guided AF ablation were significantly longer than those of MCN. CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that RMN is as effective as MCN in achieving pulmonary vein isolation and freedom from AF recurrence, and has superior safety with less complications and shorter fluoroscopy time.
BACKGROUND: The aim of this review was to evaluate the efficacy and safety between remote magnetic navigation (RMN) and manual control navigation (MCN) for atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation. METHODS: We searched the PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane library databases using the key words AF, ablation and magnetic navigation. RESULTS: Eighteen studies were identified in this analysis including 4046 patients comparing RMN and MCN in AF ablation, which were all non-randomized controlled studies. No significant difference of AF recurrence rate (40% vs. 38%, OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.82-1.22, p = 0. 97) and acute success rate in achieving pulmonary vein isolation (91% vs. 93%, OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.16-1.17, p = 0.10) was found between RMN and MCN. However, compared with MCN, RMN was associated with significantly lower complication rate (2% vs. 5%, OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.28-0.69, p = 0. 0003) and shorter fluoroscopy time (MD -9.71 min, 95% CI -15.80 to -3.63, p = 0.002). Procedure time (MD 47.05 min, 95% CI 27.5-66.58, p < 0.00001) and ablation time (MD 15.90 min, 95% CI 9.62-22.18, p < 0.00001) of RMN guided AF ablation were significantly longer than those of MCN. CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that RMN is as effective as MCN in achieving pulmonary vein isolation and freedom from AF recurrence, and has superior safety with less complications and shorter fluoroscopy time.