ArticleHeliyon2021
Remote magnetic navigation compared to contemporary manual techniques for the catheter ablation of ventricular arrhythmias in structural heart disease.
Article in Heliyon, 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical value of robot-assisted catheter navigation for cardiac electrophysiology ablation: current evidence and future directions.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- The Heart's Electromagnetic Field in Emotions, Empathy and Human Connection: Biosensor-Derived Insights into Heart-Brain Axis Mechanisms and a Basis for Novel BioMagnetoTherapies.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Idiopathic Ventricular Arrhythmias Originating from the Left Ventricular Summit: A Diagnostic and Therapeutic Challenge.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Radiofrequency ablation of premature ventricular contractions guided by robotic magnetic navigation combined with pattern matching filter.Clinical cardiology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere are limited data comparing remote magnetic navigation (RMN) to contemporary techniques of manual-guided ventricular arrhythmia (VA) catheter ablation.
objectivesWe compared acute and long-term outcomes of VA ablation guided by either RMN or contemporary manual techniques in patients with structural heart disease.
methodsFrom 2010-2019, 192 consecutive patients, with ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) or non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) underwent catheter ablation for sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) or premature ventricular complexes (PVCs), using either RMN (n = 60) or manual (n = 132) guided techniques. Acute success and VA-free survival were compared.
resultsIn ICM, acute procedural success was comparable between the 2 techniques (manual 43.5% vs. RMN 29%,
conclusionRMN provides similar outcomes to manual ablation in patients with ICM. In NICM however, acute success, and long-term VA-free survival was better with manual ablation. Prospective, multi-centre randomised trials comparing contemporary manual and RMN systems for VA catheter ablation are needed.
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.