A meta-analysis of manual versus remote magnetic navigation for ventricular tachycardia ablation

Mohit K. Turagam, Donita Atkins, Roderick Tung, Moussa Mansour, Jeremy Ruskin, Jie Cheng, Luigi Di Biase, Andrea Natale, Dhanunjaya Lakkireddy

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background: There are limited studies on the safety and efficacy of remote magnetic navigation (RMN) versus manual navigation (MAN) in ventricular tachycardia (VT) ablation. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was performed using the keywords VT ablation, stereotaxis, RMN and MAN in Pubmed, Ebsco, Web of Science, Cochrane, and Google scholar databases. Results: The analysis included seven studies (one randomized, three prospective observational, and three retrospective) including 779 patients [both structural heart disease (SHD) and idiopathic VT] comparing RMN (N = 433) and MAN (N = 339) in VT ablation. The primary end point of long-term VT recurrence was significantly lower with RMN (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.44–0.85, p = 0.003) compared with MAN. Other end points of acute procedural success (OR 2.13, 95% CI 1.40–3.23, p = 0.0004) was significantly higher with RMN compared with MAN. Fluoroscopy [mean difference −10.42, 95% CI −12.7 to −8.1, p < 0.0001], procedural time [mean difference −9.79, 95% CI −19.27 to −0.3, p = 0.04] and complications (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.17–0.74, p = 0.0006) were also significantly lower in RMN when compared with MAN. In a subgroup analysis SHD, there was no significant difference in VT recurrence or acute procedural success with RMN vs. MAN. In idiopathic VT, RMN significantly increased acute procedural success with no difference in VT recurrence. Conclusion: The results demonstrate that RMN is safe and effective when compared with MAN in patients with both SHD and idiopathic VT undergoing catheter ablation. Further prospective studies are needed to further verify the safety and efficacy of RMN.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)227-235
Number of pages9
JournalJournal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology
Volume49
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 1 2017

Fingerprint

Ventricular Tachycardia
Meta-Analysis
Heart Diseases
Recurrence
Safety
Patient Navigation
Catheter Ablation
Fluoroscopy
Prospective Studies

Keywords

  • Catheter ablation
  • Remote magnetic navigation and manual navigation system
  • Stereotaxis
  • Ventricular tachycardia

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
  • Physiology (medical)

Cite this

Turagam, M. K., Atkins, D., Tung, R., Mansour, M., Ruskin, J., Cheng, J., ... Lakkireddy, D. (2017). A meta-analysis of manual versus remote magnetic navigation for ventricular tachycardia ablation. Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology, 49(3), 227-235. DOI: 10.1007/s10840-017-0257-3

A meta-analysis of manual versus remote magnetic navigation for ventricular tachycardia ablation. / Turagam, Mohit K.; Atkins, Donita; Tung, Roderick; Mansour, Moussa; Ruskin, Jeremy; Cheng, Jie; Di Biase, Luigi; Natale, Andrea; Lakkireddy, Dhanunjaya.

In: Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology, Vol. 49, No. 3, 01.09.2017, p. 227-235.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Turagam, MK, Atkins, D, Tung, R, Mansour, M, Ruskin, J, Cheng, J, Di Biase, L, Natale, A & Lakkireddy, D 2017, 'A meta-analysis of manual versus remote magnetic navigation for ventricular tachycardia ablation' Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology, vol 49, no. 3, pp. 227-235. DOI: 10.1007/s10840-017-0257-3
Turagam MK, Atkins D, Tung R, Mansour M, Ruskin J, Cheng J et al. A meta-analysis of manual versus remote magnetic navigation for ventricular tachycardia ablation. Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology. 2017 Sep 1;49(3):227-235. Available from, DOI: 10.1007/s10840-017-0257-3

Turagam, Mohit K.; Atkins, Donita; Tung, Roderick; Mansour, Moussa; Ruskin, Jeremy; Cheng, Jie; Di Biase, Luigi; Natale, Andrea; Lakkireddy, Dhanunjaya / A meta-analysis of manual versus remote magnetic navigation for ventricular tachycardia ablation.

In: Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology, Vol. 49, No. 3, 01.09.2017, p. 227-235.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{44650d9c7c694579b04f5eda332fec54,
title = "A meta-analysis of manual versus remote magnetic navigation for ventricular tachycardia ablation",
abstract = "Background: There are limited studies on the safety and efficacy of remote magnetic navigation (RMN) versus manual navigation (MAN) in ventricular tachycardia (VT) ablation. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was performed using the keywords VT ablation, stereotaxis, RMN and MAN in Pubmed, Ebsco, Web of Science, Cochrane, and Google scholar databases. Results: The analysis included seven studies (one randomized, three prospective observational, and three retrospective) including 779 patients [both structural heart disease (SHD) and idiopathic VT] comparing RMN (N = 433) and MAN (N = 339) in VT ablation. The primary end point of long-term VT recurrence was significantly lower with RMN (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.44–0.85, p = 0.003) compared with MAN. Other end points of acute procedural success (OR 2.13, 95% CI 1.40–3.23, p = 0.0004) was significantly higher with RMN compared with MAN. Fluoroscopy [mean difference −10.42, 95% CI −12.7 to −8.1, p < 0.0001], procedural time [mean difference −9.79, 95% CI −19.27 to −0.3, p = 0.04] and complications (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.17–0.74, p = 0.0006) were also significantly lower in RMN when compared with MAN. In a subgroup analysis SHD, there was no significant difference in VT recurrence or acute procedural success with RMN vs. MAN. In idiopathic VT, RMN significantly increased acute procedural success with no difference in VT recurrence. Conclusion: The results demonstrate that RMN is safe and effective when compared with MAN in patients with both SHD and idiopathic VT undergoing catheter ablation. Further prospective studies are needed to further verify the safety and efficacy of RMN.",
keywords = "Catheter ablation, Remote magnetic navigation and manual navigation system, Stereotaxis, Ventricular tachycardia",
author = "Turagam, {Mohit K.} and Donita Atkins and Roderick Tung and Moussa Mansour and Jeremy Ruskin and Jie Cheng and {Di Biase}, Luigi and Andrea Natale and Dhanunjaya Lakkireddy",
year = "2017",
month = "9",
doi = "10.1007/s10840-017-0257-3",
volume = "49",
pages = "227--235",
journal = "Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology",
issn = "1383-875X",
publisher = "Springer Netherlands",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A meta-analysis of manual versus remote magnetic navigation for ventricular tachycardia ablation

AU - Turagam,Mohit K.

AU - Atkins,Donita

AU - Tung,Roderick

AU - Mansour,Moussa

AU - Ruskin,Jeremy

AU - Cheng,Jie

AU - Di Biase,Luigi

AU - Natale,Andrea

AU - Lakkireddy,Dhanunjaya

PY - 2017/9/1

Y1 - 2017/9/1

N2 - Background: There are limited studies on the safety and efficacy of remote magnetic navigation (RMN) versus manual navigation (MAN) in ventricular tachycardia (VT) ablation. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was performed using the keywords VT ablation, stereotaxis, RMN and MAN in Pubmed, Ebsco, Web of Science, Cochrane, and Google scholar databases. Results: The analysis included seven studies (one randomized, three prospective observational, and three retrospective) including 779 patients [both structural heart disease (SHD) and idiopathic VT] comparing RMN (N = 433) and MAN (N = 339) in VT ablation. The primary end point of long-term VT recurrence was significantly lower with RMN (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.44–0.85, p = 0.003) compared with MAN. Other end points of acute procedural success (OR 2.13, 95% CI 1.40–3.23, p = 0.0004) was significantly higher with RMN compared with MAN. Fluoroscopy [mean difference −10.42, 95% CI −12.7 to −8.1, p < 0.0001], procedural time [mean difference −9.79, 95% CI −19.27 to −0.3, p = 0.04] and complications (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.17–0.74, p = 0.0006) were also significantly lower in RMN when compared with MAN. In a subgroup analysis SHD, there was no significant difference in VT recurrence or acute procedural success with RMN vs. MAN. In idiopathic VT, RMN significantly increased acute procedural success with no difference in VT recurrence. Conclusion: The results demonstrate that RMN is safe and effective when compared with MAN in patients with both SHD and idiopathic VT undergoing catheter ablation. Further prospective studies are needed to further verify the safety and efficacy of RMN.

AB - Background: There are limited studies on the safety and efficacy of remote magnetic navigation (RMN) versus manual navigation (MAN) in ventricular tachycardia (VT) ablation. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was performed using the keywords VT ablation, stereotaxis, RMN and MAN in Pubmed, Ebsco, Web of Science, Cochrane, and Google scholar databases. Results: The analysis included seven studies (one randomized, three prospective observational, and three retrospective) including 779 patients [both structural heart disease (SHD) and idiopathic VT] comparing RMN (N = 433) and MAN (N = 339) in VT ablation. The primary end point of long-term VT recurrence was significantly lower with RMN (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.44–0.85, p = 0.003) compared with MAN. Other end points of acute procedural success (OR 2.13, 95% CI 1.40–3.23, p = 0.0004) was significantly higher with RMN compared with MAN. Fluoroscopy [mean difference −10.42, 95% CI −12.7 to −8.1, p < 0.0001], procedural time [mean difference −9.79, 95% CI −19.27 to −0.3, p = 0.04] and complications (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.17–0.74, p = 0.0006) were also significantly lower in RMN when compared with MAN. In a subgroup analysis SHD, there was no significant difference in VT recurrence or acute procedural success with RMN vs. MAN. In idiopathic VT, RMN significantly increased acute procedural success with no difference in VT recurrence. Conclusion: The results demonstrate that RMN is safe and effective when compared with MAN in patients with both SHD and idiopathic VT undergoing catheter ablation. Further prospective studies are needed to further verify the safety and efficacy of RMN.

KW - Catheter ablation

KW - Remote magnetic navigation and manual navigation system

KW - Stereotaxis

KW - Ventricular tachycardia

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85020492988&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85020492988&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s10840-017-0257-3

DO - 10.1007/s10840-017-0257-3

M3 - Article

VL - 49

SP - 227

EP - 235

JO - Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology

T2 - Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology

JF - Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology

SN - 1383-875X

IS - 3

ER -