ArticleHeart and vessels2024
Contact force sensing manual catheter versus remote magnetic navigation ablation of atrial fibrillation: a single-center comparison.
Article in Heart and vessels, 2024. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical value of robot-assisted catheter navigation for cardiac electrophysiology ablation: current evidence and future directions.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- Biatrial cardioneuroablation guided by robotic magnetic navigation and artificial intelligence-based mapping in vagal bradyarrhythmias: A controlled observational study.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2026Observational
- Investigating workload and usability of remote magnetic navigation for catheter ablation.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2026Article
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundData comparing remote magnetic catheter navigation (RMN) with manual catheter navigation in combination with contact force sensing (MCN-CF) ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) is lacking. The primary aim of the present retrospective comparative study was to compare the outcome of RMN versus (vs.) MCN-CF ablation of AF with regards to AF recurrence. Secondary aim was to analyze periprocedural risk, ablation characteristics and repeat procedures.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed 452 patients undergoing a total of 605 ablations of AF: 180 patients were ablated using RMN, 272 using MCN-CF.
resultsExcept body mass index there was no significant difference between groups at baseline. After a mean 1.6 ± 1.6 years of follow-up and 1.3 ± 0.4 procedures, 81% of the patients in the MCN-CF group remained free of AF recurrence compared to 53% in the RMN group (P < 0.001). After analysis of 153 repeat ablations (83 MCN-RF vs. 70 RMN; P = 0.18), there was a significantly higher reconnection rate of pulmonary veins after RMN ablation (P < 0.001). In multivariable Cox-regression analysis, RMN ablation (P < 0.001) and left atrial diameter (P = 0.013) was an independent risk factor for AF recurrence. Procedure time, radiofrequency application time and total fluoroscopy time and fluoroscopy dose were higher in the RMN group without difference in total number of ablation points. Complication rates did not differ significantly between groups (P = 0.722).
conclusionsIn our retrospective comparative study, the AF recurrence rate and pulmonary vein reconnection rate is significantly lower with more favorable procedural characteristics and similar complication rate utilizing MCN-CF compared to RMN.
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.