Remote magnetic with open-irrigated catheter vs. manual navigation for ablation of atrial fibrillation

A systematic review and meta-analysis

Riccardo Proietti, Valentina Pecoraro, Luigi Di Biase, Andrea Natale, Pasquale Santangeli, Maurizio Viecca, Antonio Sagone, Alessio Galli, Lorenzo Moja, Ludovica Tagliabue

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

38 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The aim of this study was to determine the efficacy and safety of remote magnetic navigation (RMN) with open-irrigated catheter vs. manual catheter navigation (MCN) in performing atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation. We searched in PubMed (1948-2013) and EMBASE (1974-2013) studies comparing RMN with MCN. Outcomes considered were AF recurrence (primary outcome), pulmonary vein isolation (PVI), procedural complications, and data on procedure's performance. Odds ratios (OR) and mean difference (MD) were extracted and pooled using a random-effect model. Confidence in the estimates of the obtained effects (quality of evidence) was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. We identified seven controlled trials, six non-randomized and one randomized, including a total of 941 patients. Studies were at high risk of bias. No difference was observed between RMN and MCN on AF recurrence [OR 1.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 1.65, P = 0.32] or PVI (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.11-1.47, P = 0.17). Remote magnetic navigation was associated with less peri-procedural complications (Peto OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.19-0.88, P = 0.02). Mean fluoroscopy time was reduced in RMN group (-22.22 min; 95% CI-42.48 to-1.96, P = 0.03), although the overall duration of the procedure was longer (60.91 min; 95% CI 31.17 to 90.65, P < 0.0001). In conclusion, RMN is not superior to MCN in achieving freedom from recurrent AF at mid-term follow-up or PVI. The procedure implies less peri-procedural complications, requires a shorter fluoroscopy time but a longer total procedural time. For the low quality of the available evidence, a proper designed randomized controlled trial could turn the direction and the effect of the dimensions explored.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1241-1248
Number of pages8
JournalEuropace
Volume15
Issue number9
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 2013

Fingerprint

Atrial Fibrillation
Meta-Analysis
Catheters
Confidence Intervals
Pulmonary Veins
Odds Ratio
Fluoroscopy
Recurrence
PubMed
Randomized Controlled Trials
Safety

Keywords

  • Atrial fibrillation ablation
  • Remote magnetic navigation
  • Stereotaxis

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
  • Physiology (medical)

Cite this

Remote magnetic with open-irrigated catheter vs. manual navigation for ablation of atrial fibrillation : A systematic review and meta-analysis. / Proietti, Riccardo; Pecoraro, Valentina; Di Biase, Luigi; Natale, Andrea; Santangeli, Pasquale; Viecca, Maurizio; Sagone, Antonio; Galli, Alessio; Moja, Lorenzo; Tagliabue, Ludovica.

In: Europace, Vol. 15, No. 9, 09.2013, p. 1241-1248.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Proietti, R, Pecoraro, V, Di Biase, L, Natale, A, Santangeli, P, Viecca, M, Sagone, A, Galli, A, Moja, L & Tagliabue, L 2013, 'Remote magnetic with open-irrigated catheter vs. manual navigation for ablation of atrial fibrillation: A systematic review and meta-analysis', Europace, vol. 15, no. 9, pp. 1241-1248. https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/eut058
Proietti, Riccardo ; Pecoraro, Valentina ; Di Biase, Luigi ; Natale, Andrea ; Santangeli, Pasquale ; Viecca, Maurizio ; Sagone, Antonio ; Galli, Alessio ; Moja, Lorenzo ; Tagliabue, Ludovica. / Remote magnetic with open-irrigated catheter vs. manual navigation for ablation of atrial fibrillation : A systematic review and meta-analysis. In: Europace. 2013 ; Vol. 15, No. 9. pp. 1241-1248.
@article{df66633b0e7f49ce9dd7571a9b14589b,
title = "Remote magnetic with open-irrigated catheter vs. manual navigation for ablation of atrial fibrillation: A systematic review and meta-analysis",
abstract = "The aim of this study was to determine the efficacy and safety of remote magnetic navigation (RMN) with open-irrigated catheter vs. manual catheter navigation (MCN) in performing atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation. We searched in PubMed (1948-2013) and EMBASE (1974-2013) studies comparing RMN with MCN. Outcomes considered were AF recurrence (primary outcome), pulmonary vein isolation (PVI), procedural complications, and data on procedure's performance. Odds ratios (OR) and mean difference (MD) were extracted and pooled using a random-effect model. Confidence in the estimates of the obtained effects (quality of evidence) was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. We identified seven controlled trials, six non-randomized and one randomized, including a total of 941 patients. Studies were at high risk of bias. No difference was observed between RMN and MCN on AF recurrence [OR 1.18, 95{\%} confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 1.65, P = 0.32] or PVI (OR 0.41, 95{\%} CI 0.11-1.47, P = 0.17). Remote magnetic navigation was associated with less peri-procedural complications (Peto OR 0.41, 95{\%} CI 0.19-0.88, P = 0.02). Mean fluoroscopy time was reduced in RMN group (-22.22 min; 95{\%} CI-42.48 to-1.96, P = 0.03), although the overall duration of the procedure was longer (60.91 min; 95{\%} CI 31.17 to 90.65, P < 0.0001). In conclusion, RMN is not superior to MCN in achieving freedom from recurrent AF at mid-term follow-up or PVI. The procedure implies less peri-procedural complications, requires a shorter fluoroscopy time but a longer total procedural time. For the low quality of the available evidence, a proper designed randomized controlled trial could turn the direction and the effect of the dimensions explored.",
keywords = "Atrial fibrillation ablation, Remote magnetic navigation, Stereotaxis",
author = "Riccardo Proietti and Valentina Pecoraro and {Di Biase}, Luigi and Andrea Natale and Pasquale Santangeli and Maurizio Viecca and Antonio Sagone and Alessio Galli and Lorenzo Moja and Ludovica Tagliabue",
year = "2013",
month = "9",
doi = "10.1093/europace/eut058",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "15",
pages = "1241--1248",
journal = "Europace",
issn = "1099-5129",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "9",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Remote magnetic with open-irrigated catheter vs. manual navigation for ablation of atrial fibrillation

T2 - A systematic review and meta-analysis

AU - Proietti, Riccardo

AU - Pecoraro, Valentina

AU - Di Biase, Luigi

AU - Natale, Andrea

AU - Santangeli, Pasquale

AU - Viecca, Maurizio

AU - Sagone, Antonio

AU - Galli, Alessio

AU - Moja, Lorenzo

AU - Tagliabue, Ludovica

PY - 2013/9

Y1 - 2013/9

N2 - The aim of this study was to determine the efficacy and safety of remote magnetic navigation (RMN) with open-irrigated catheter vs. manual catheter navigation (MCN) in performing atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation. We searched in PubMed (1948-2013) and EMBASE (1974-2013) studies comparing RMN with MCN. Outcomes considered were AF recurrence (primary outcome), pulmonary vein isolation (PVI), procedural complications, and data on procedure's performance. Odds ratios (OR) and mean difference (MD) were extracted and pooled using a random-effect model. Confidence in the estimates of the obtained effects (quality of evidence) was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. We identified seven controlled trials, six non-randomized and one randomized, including a total of 941 patients. Studies were at high risk of bias. No difference was observed between RMN and MCN on AF recurrence [OR 1.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 1.65, P = 0.32] or PVI (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.11-1.47, P = 0.17). Remote magnetic navigation was associated with less peri-procedural complications (Peto OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.19-0.88, P = 0.02). Mean fluoroscopy time was reduced in RMN group (-22.22 min; 95% CI-42.48 to-1.96, P = 0.03), although the overall duration of the procedure was longer (60.91 min; 95% CI 31.17 to 90.65, P < 0.0001). In conclusion, RMN is not superior to MCN in achieving freedom from recurrent AF at mid-term follow-up or PVI. The procedure implies less peri-procedural complications, requires a shorter fluoroscopy time but a longer total procedural time. For the low quality of the available evidence, a proper designed randomized controlled trial could turn the direction and the effect of the dimensions explored.

AB - The aim of this study was to determine the efficacy and safety of remote magnetic navigation (RMN) with open-irrigated catheter vs. manual catheter navigation (MCN) in performing atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation. We searched in PubMed (1948-2013) and EMBASE (1974-2013) studies comparing RMN with MCN. Outcomes considered were AF recurrence (primary outcome), pulmonary vein isolation (PVI), procedural complications, and data on procedure's performance. Odds ratios (OR) and mean difference (MD) were extracted and pooled using a random-effect model. Confidence in the estimates of the obtained effects (quality of evidence) was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. We identified seven controlled trials, six non-randomized and one randomized, including a total of 941 patients. Studies were at high risk of bias. No difference was observed between RMN and MCN on AF recurrence [OR 1.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 1.65, P = 0.32] or PVI (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.11-1.47, P = 0.17). Remote magnetic navigation was associated with less peri-procedural complications (Peto OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.19-0.88, P = 0.02). Mean fluoroscopy time was reduced in RMN group (-22.22 min; 95% CI-42.48 to-1.96, P = 0.03), although the overall duration of the procedure was longer (60.91 min; 95% CI 31.17 to 90.65, P < 0.0001). In conclusion, RMN is not superior to MCN in achieving freedom from recurrent AF at mid-term follow-up or PVI. The procedure implies less peri-procedural complications, requires a shorter fluoroscopy time but a longer total procedural time. For the low quality of the available evidence, a proper designed randomized controlled trial could turn the direction and the effect of the dimensions explored.

KW - Atrial fibrillation ablation

KW - Remote magnetic navigation

KW - Stereotaxis

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84883414300&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84883414300&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1093/europace/eut058

DO - 10.1093/europace/eut058

M3 - Article

VL - 15

SP - 1241

EP - 1248

JO - Europace

JF - Europace

SN - 1099-5129

IS - 9

ER -