Korean Circulation Journal

The Korean Society of Cardiology (대한심장학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparison of Magnetic Navigation System and Conventional Method in Catheter Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation: Is Magnetic Navigation System Is More Effective and Safer Than Conventional Method?

  • Choi, Min-Seok (Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • Oh, Yong-Seog (Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • Jang, Sung-Won (Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • Kim, Ji-Hoon (Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • Shin, Woo-Seung (Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • Youn, Ho-Joong (Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • Jung, Wook-Sung (Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • Lee, Man-Young (Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • Seong, Ki-Bae (Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea)
  • Published : 2011.05.30
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background and Objectives: Although there have been so many reports of catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) with magnetic navigation system (MNS), it is not necessarily obvious that MNS is more effective than conventional ablation. We performed AF ablation with MNS and compared the clinical outcomes and radiofrequency ablation parameters with those of conventional ablation. Subjects and Methods: One hundred eleven consecutive patients (conventional group, n=70 vs. MNS group, n=41) undergoing catheter ablation of AF were enrolled. We compared and analyzed the procedural parameters, namely fluoroscopic time, procedural time, acute procedural success and 3 months success rate of both groups. Results: The MNS group was associated with slightly larger left atrial size (43.7${\pm}$6.3 mm vs. 41.2${\pm}$6.3 mm, p=0.04), significantly longer total procedure time (352${\pm}$50 minutes vs. 283${\pm}$75 minutes, p<0.0001), and shorter total fluoroscopic time (99${\pm}$28 minutes vs. 238${\pm}$45 minutes, p<0.0001) than the conventional group. The MNS and conventional group did not differ with respect to acute procedural success, AF recurrence, atrial flutter/atrial tachycardia recurrence, or total arrhythmia recurrence. While no complications were observed in the MNS group, eight cases of significant pericardial effusion occurred in the conventional group. Conclusion: The MNS system seems to be effective and safe in the catheter ablation of AF, particularly in the population of patients with persistent AF and slightly dilated left atria.

Keywords

References

  1. Ernst S, Ouyang F, Linder C, et al. Initial experience with remote catheter ablation using a novel magnetic navigation system: magnetic catheter ablation. Circulation 2004;109:1472-5. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.0000125126.83579.1B
  2. Chun JK, Ernst S, Matthews S, et al. Remote-controlled catheter ablation of accessory pathways: results from the magnetic laboratory. Eur Heart J 2007;28:190-5.
  3. Arya A, Kottkamp H, Piorkowski C, et al. Initial clinical experience with a remote magnetic catheter navigation system for ablation of cavotricuspid isthmus-dependent right atrial flutter. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2008;31:597-603. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-8159.2008.01047.x
  4. Thornton AS, Jordaens LJ. Remote magnetic navigation for mapping and ablating right ventricular outflow tract tachycardia. Heart Rhythm 2006;3:691-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm.2006.01.028
  5. Pappone C, Vicedomini G, Manguso F, et al. Robotic magnetic navigation for atrial fibrillation ablation. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006;47:1390-400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2005.11.058
  6. Kim AM, Turakhia M, Lu J, et al. Impact of remote magnetic cathteter navigation on ablation fluoroscopy and procedure time. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2008;31:1399-404. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-8159.2008.01202.x
  7. Di Biase L, Fahmy TS, Patel D, et al. Remote magnetic navigation: human experience in pulmonary vein ablation. J Am Coll Cardiol 2007;50:868-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2007.05.023
  8. Dagres N, Hindricks G, Kottkamp H, et al. Complications of atrial fibrillation ablation in a high-volume center in 1,000 procedures: still cause for concern? J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2009;20:1014-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-8167.2009.01493.x

Cited by

  1. Remote magnetic with open-irrigated catheter vs. manual navigation for ablation of atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis vol.15, pp.9, 2011, https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/eut058
  2. Impact of catheter ablation with remote magnetic navigation on procedural outcomes in patients with persistent and long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation vol.44, pp.2, 2011, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10840-015-0037-x
  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. vol.17, pp.2, 2011, https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euu224
  4. Robotic navigation for catheter ablation: benefits and challenges vol.12, pp.4, 2011, https://doi.org/10.1586/17434440.2015.1052406
  5. Remote Magnetic versus Manual Navigation for Radiofrequency Ablation of Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation: Long-Term, Controlled Data in a Large Cohort vol.2017, pp.None, 2011, https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/6323729
  6. 2018 Korean Guidelines for Catheter Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation: Part II vol.19, pp.3, 2011, https://doi.org/10.18501/arrhythmia.2018.012
  7. Comparisons of efficacy, safety, and recurrence risk factors of paroxysmal and persistent atrial fibrillation catheter ablation using robotic magnetic navigation system vol.42, pp.4, 2011, https://doi.org/10.1002/clc.23156
  8. Remote Magnetic Versus Manual Catheter Navigation for Atrial Fibrillation Ablation : A Meta-Analysis vol.12, pp.10, 2011, https://doi.org/10.1161/circep.119.007517
  9. A review of magnetic actuation systems and magnetically actuated guidewire- and catheter-based microrobots for vascular interventions vol.13, pp.1, 2011, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11370-020-00311-0
  10. Soft robotic steerable microcatheter for the endovascular treatment of cerebral disorders vol.6, pp.57, 2011, https://doi.org/10.1126/scirobotics.abf0601