Rugheed Ghadban1, Kristina Gifft2, Zachary Luebbering3, Sandeep Sodhi1, Daniel Cooper1, Tariq Enezate4. 1. Division of Cardiology, Washington University, St Louis, MO, USA. 2. Department of General Medicine, University of Missouri Health Care, Columbia, MO, USA. 3. Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Missouri Health Care, Columbia, MO, USA. 4. Division of Cardiology, University of California Log Angeles-Harbor Medical Center, 1000 W Carson St., Torrance, CA, 90502, USA. tariqenezate@gmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Studies comparing manual catheter navigation (MCN) to remote magnetic navigation (RMN) for atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation showed variable results. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this meta-analysis is to compare the safety and clinical outcomes of AF radiofrequency (RF) ablation using MCN versus RMN with irrigated tip catheters. METHODS: Medline and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were queried from inception through January 2019. Studies comparing safety and clinical outcomes of AF ablation with RF using MCN versus RMN with irrigated tip catheters were included. Random effects meta-analysis was used to pool outcomes across studies. Study endpoints included freedom of AF at the end of the study, procedure total time, fluoroscopy time, and complications. RESULTS: A total of 14 studies (3 controlled non-randomized trials, 1 prospective observational, and 10 retrospective observational studies) involving 3375 patients (1871 in MCN and 1504 in RMN) were included in this meta-analysis. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of freedom of AF (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.82-1.42, p = 0.52). The MCN group was associated with shorter procedure time (mean difference in minutes - 50.39, 95% CI - 67.99 to - 32.79, p < 0.01), longer fluoroscopy time (mean difference in minutes 18.01, 95% CI 10.73-25.29, p < 0.01), and higher complication rate (OR 2.18, 95% CI 1.24-3.82, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: AF ablation utilizing MCN was associated with similar efficacy to RMN but with higher complication rates. Although the procedure time was shorter with MCN, the fluoroscopy time was more prolonged. Randomized clinical studies are needed to further verify these results.
BACKGROUND: Studies comparing manual catheter navigation (MCN) to remote magnetic navigation (RMN) for atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation showed variable results. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this meta-analysis is to compare the safety and clinical outcomes of AF radiofrequency (RF) ablation using MCN versus RMN with irrigated tip catheters. METHODS: Medline and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were queried from inception through January 2019. Studies comparing safety and clinical outcomes of AF ablation with RF using MCN versus RMN with irrigated tip catheters were included. Random effects meta-analysis was used to pool outcomes across studies. Study endpoints included freedom of AF at the end of the study, procedure total time, fluoroscopy time, and complications. RESULTS: A total of 14 studies (3 controlled non-randomized trials, 1 prospective observational, and 10 retrospective observational studies) involving 3375 patients (1871 in MCN and 1504 in RMN) were included in this meta-analysis. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of freedom of AF (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.82-1.42, p = 0.52). The MCN group was associated with shorter procedure time (mean difference in minutes - 50.39, 95% CI - 67.99 to - 32.79, p < 0.01), longer fluoroscopy time (mean difference in minutes 18.01, 95% CI 10.73-25.29, p < 0.01), and higher complication rate (OR 2.18, 95% CI 1.24-3.82, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: AF ablation utilizing MCN was associated with similar efficacy to RMN but with higher complication rates. Although the procedure time was shorter with MCN, the fluoroscopy time was more prolonged. Randomized clinical studies are needed to further verify these results.
Authors: Borislav Dinov; Robert Schönbauer; Agnieska Wojdyla-Hordynska; Frieder Braunschweig; Sergio Richter; David Altmann; Philipp Sommer; Thomas Gaspar; Andreas Bollmann; Ulrike Wetzel; Sascha Rolf; Christopher Piorkowski; Gerhard Hindricks; Arash Arya Journal: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol Date: 2012-02-07
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
Authors: Pedro Pulido Adragão; Diogo Cavaco; António Miguel Ferreira; Francisco Moscoso Costa; Leonor Parreira; Pedro Carmo; Francisco Bello Morgado; Katya Reis Santos; Pedro Galvão Santos; Maria Salomé Carvalho; Anai Durazzo; Hugo Marques; Pedro Araújo Gonçalves; Luís Raposo; Miguel Mendes Journal: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol Date: 2016-03
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: Antonio Sorgente; Gian Battista Chierchia; Lucio Capulzini; Yoshinao Yazaki; Andreas Muller-Burri; Fatih Bayrak; Andrea Sarkozy; Carlo de Asmundis; Gaetano Paparella; Brugada Brugada Journal: Indian Pacing Electrophysiol J Date: 2010-12-26
Authors: Min Seok Choi; Yong-Seog Oh; Sung Won Jang; Ji Hoon Kim; Woo Seung Shin; Ho-Joong Youn; Wook Sung Jung; Man Young Lee; Ki Bae Seong Journal: Korean Circ J Date: 2011-05-31 Impact factor: 3.243