ArticleClinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society2019
Remote vs. conventional navigation for catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation: insights from prospective registry data.
Article in Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Association between atrial fibrillation and Helicobacter pylori.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2019Pooled it
- Optimal power settings have major impact on procedural efficiency in pulmonary vein isolation guided by robotic magnetic navigation.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2026Article
- Technical and Clinical Progress on Robot-Assisted Endovascular Interventions: A Review.Micromachines · 2023Review
- Tailoring the Ablative Strategy for Atrial Fibrillation: A State-of-the-Art Review.Cardiology research and practice · 2022Review
- 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
- Pulmonary vein isolation treats symptomatic AF in a patient with Lamin A/C mutation: case report and review of the literature.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2020Review
- Digitalis therapy is associated with higher comorbidities and poorer prognosis in patients undergoing ablation of atrial arrhythmias: data from the German Ablation Registry.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRobotic (RNS) or magnetic navigation systems (MNS) are available for remotely performed catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF).
objectiveThe present study compares remotely assisted catheter navigation (RAN) to standard manual navigation (SMN) and both systems amongst each other.
methodsThe analysis is based on a sub-cohort enrolled by five hospitals from the multicenter German ablation Registry.
resultsOut of 2442 patients receiving catheter ablation of AF, 267 (age 61.4 ± 10.4, 69.7% male) were treated using RAN (RNS n = 187, 7.7% vs. MNS n = 80, 3.3%). Fluoroscopy time [RNS median 17 (IQR 12-25) min vs. MNS 22 (16-32) min; p < 0.001] and procedure duration [RNS 180 (145-220) min vs. MNS 265 (210-305) min; p < 0.001] were significantly different. Comparing RAN (11%) to SMN (89%) fluoroscopy time (RAN 19 (13-27) min, vs. SMN 25 (16-40) min; p < 0.001), energy delivery (RAN 3168 (2280-3840) s vs. SMN 2640 (IQR 1799-3900) s; p = 0.008) and procedure duration [RAN 195 (150-255) min vs. SMN 150 (120-150) min; p = 0.001] differed significantly. In terms of acute and 12 months outcome, no differences were seen between the two systems or in comparison to SMN.
conclusionAF ablation can be performed safely, with high acute success rates using RAN. RNS results in less fluoroscopy burden and shorter procedure durations. Compared to SMN, a reduced fluoroscopy burden, prolonged procedure and ablation duration were observed using RAN. Overall, the number of RAN procedures is small suggesting low impact on clinical routine of AF ablation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30159751What 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.