ArticleThe Journal of innovations in cardiac rhythm management2026
Robotic Magnetic Navigation Versus Manual Catheter Ablation for Premature Ventricular Contractions: A Single-center Retrospective Cohort Study.
Article in The Journal of innovations in cardiac rhythm management, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical value of robot-assisted catheter navigation for cardiac electrophysiology ablation: current evidence and future directions.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- Letter from the Editor in Chief.The Journal of innovations in cardiac rhythm management · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Robotic magnetic navigation (RMN) offers potential advantages for premature ventricular contraction (PVC) ablation, including improved catheter stability and reduced operator radiation exposure, but comparative data versus conventional manual ablation for PVCs are limited. The objective of this study was to compare procedural metrics and very short-term clinical outcomes-specifically, 1-month symptom status, class I/III anti-arrhythmic drug (AAD) use, and periprocedural complications-between RMN-guided and manual PVC ablation in a single-center experience. We performed a retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients undergoing PVC ablation at a single center between 2019 and 2023. Patients were categorized by technique: conventional manual ablation or RMN using the Niobe ES system (Stereotaxis, St. Louis, MO, USA). Of 93 unique patients, 74 initially underwent RMN and 19 underwent manual ablation. Seven RMN cases requiring intraprocedural conversion to manual ablation were excluded from the primary comparison, yielding a per-protocol analytic cohort of 86 patients (67 RMN and 19 manual). Baseline characteristics, including age, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), comorbidities, pre-procedure PVC burden, and class I/III AAD use, were compared between groups. The primary endpoints were total procedure time and fluoroscopy time, while secondary endpoints included 1-month symptom resolution, post-procedure class I/III AAD use, and periprocedural complications. An intention-to-treat sensitivity analysis grouped converted cases with the RMN-initial cohort. Baseline characteristics were similar between the RMN and manual cohorts (mean age, 62.8 ± 13.1 vs. 62.2 ± 12.8 years; LVEF, 46.2% ± 13.5% vs. 50.8% ± 14.8%; left ventricular [LV] systolic dysfunction [LVEF < 50%], 44.8% vs. 31.6%; all
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.