ArticleJournal of arrhythmia2017
Remote magnetic catheter navigation versus conventional ablation in atrial fibrillation ablation: Fluoroscopy reduction.
Article in Journal of arrhythmia, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Radiofrequency atrial fibrillation ablation with irrigated tip catheter using remote magnetic navigation compared with conventional manual method.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2021Pooled it
- Comparison Between Efficacy and Safety of Remote Magnetic Navigation and Manual Catheter Navigation for Atrial Fibrillation Ablation: An Updated Meta-analysis and Systematic Review.The Journal of innovations in cardiac rhythm management · 2025Review
- Utilization of steerable sheath improves the efficiency of atrial fibrillation ablation guided by robotic magnetic navigation compared with fixed-curve sheath.Clinical cardiology · 2022Article
- Procedural outcomes and learning curve of cardiac arrhythmias catheter ablation using remote magnetic navigation: Experience from a large-scale single-center study.Clinical cardiology · 2020Observational
- Comparisons of efficacy, safety, and recurrence risk factors of paroxysmal and persistent atrial fibrillation catheter ablation using robotic magnetic navigation system.Clinical cardiology · 2019Article
- The Impact of Left Atrial Size in Catheter Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation Using Remote Magnetic Navigation.Cardiology research and practice · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPercutaneous transcatheter radiofrequency ablation of atrial fibrillation with remote controlled magnetic navigation (RMN) has been shown to reduce radiation exposure to patients and physicians compared with conventional manual (MAN) ablation techniques.
methodsCatheter ablation for atrial fibrillation was performed utilizing RMN in 214 consecutive patients and MAN ablation techniques in 229 patients. We compared the fluoroscopy and procedural times between RMN and MAN catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation. Secondary objectives included comparing acute procedural success and short-term complication rates between both ablation strategies.
resultsFluoroscopy time was significantly shorter in the RMN group than the MAN group (53.5±30.1 vs 68.1±27.6 min, respectively;
conclusionsIn radiofrequency ablation of atrial fibrillation, RMN appears to significantly reduce fluoroscopy time compared with conventional MAN ablation, though at a cost of increased total procedural time, with comparable acute success rates and safety profile. A reduction in procedure and fluoroscopy times is possible with gaining experience.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.