SynthesisJournal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing2021
Radiofrequency atrial fibrillation ablation with irrigated tip catheter using remote magnetic navigation compared with conventional manual method.
Synthesis in Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- Instant variable stiffness in cardiovascular catheters based on fiber jamming.Science advances · 2025Article
- Best practices in robotic magnetic navigation-guided catheter ablation of cardiac arrhythmias, a position paper of the Society for Cardiac Robotic Navigation.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Review
- Atrial Fibrillation Ablation Using Robotic Magnetic Navigation Reduces the Incidence of Silent Cerebral Embolism.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStudies comparing manual catheter navigation (MCN) to remote magnetic navigation (RMN) for atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation showed variable results.
objectiveThe aim of this meta-analysis is to compare the safety and clinical outcomes of AF radiofrequency (RF) ablation using MCN versus RMN with irrigated tip catheters.
methodsMedline and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were queried from inception through January 2019. Studies comparing safety and clinical outcomes of AF ablation with RF using MCN versus RMN with irrigated tip catheters were included. Random effects meta-analysis was used to pool outcomes across studies. Study endpoints included freedom of AF at the end of the study, procedure total time, fluoroscopy time, and complications.
resultsA total of 14 studies (3 controlled non-randomized trials, 1 prospective observational, and 10 retrospective observational studies) involving 3375 patients (1871 in MCN and 1504 in RMN) were included in this meta-analysis. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of freedom of AF (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.82-1.42, p = 0.52). The MCN group was associated with shorter procedure time (mean difference in minutes - 50.39, 95% CI - 67.99 to - 32.79, p < 0.01), longer fluoroscopy time (mean difference in minutes 18.01, 95% CI 10.73-25.29, p < 0.01), and higher complication rate (OR 2.18, 95% CI 1.24-3.82, p < 0.01).
conclusionsAF ablation utilizing MCN was associated with similar efficacy to RMN but with higher complication rates. Although the procedure time was shorter with MCN, the fluoroscopy time was more prolonged. Randomized clinical studies are needed to further verify these results.
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.