ArticleHeart rhythm O22020
Introducing a novel catheter-tissue contact feedback feature in robotic navigated catheter ablation: Utility, feasibility, and safety.
Article in Heart rhythm O2, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- Applications of robotic catheter ablation in congenital heart disease.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Article
- 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
- The performance of dipole charge density mapping integrated with robotic magnetic navigation in the treatment of atrial tachycardias.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2023Article
- Dipole charge density mapping integrated in remote magnetic navigation: First-in-human feasibility study.International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issuedErratum.2021
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe quality of catheter-tissue contact is one of the most important determinants of catheter ablation (CA) success. The absence of catheter-tissue contact feedback has been regarded a major limitation of remote magnetic navigation (RMN)-guided CA. The e-Contact module (ECM) is a novel feature designed for RMN that measures the quality of catheter-tissue contact.
objectiveThe purpose of this study was to describe the first clinical experience with this feature and to test its effect on procedural parameters and interference with other ablation equipment during CA procedures as well as its safety.
methodsThis was a prospective, single-center, 2-phase study investigating ECM use during complex RMN procedures in 30 patients. Impact of ECM on procedural parameters was evaluated in the feasibility phase (FP), and its interference with other equipment was tested in the interference phase (IP) using pacing maneuvers at 3 randomly selected right atrial sites. Intracardiac electrograms were evaluated for disturbances by 2 independent electrophysiologists.
resultsFor FP, mean procedural time was 162 ± 66 minutes, fluoroscopy time 21 ± 9 minutes, and ablation time 34 ± 21 minutes. For IP, no significant differences in pacing capture or thresholds were found (ECM- vs ECM+: site 1: 2.05 vs 2.21 mA;
conclusionThe ECM is a novel catheter-tissue contact technology designed for RMN-guided CA. Our study suggests that this feature is feasible and does not interfere with other electrophysiology equipment while maintaining an excellent safety profile.
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.