Research ExplorerPublicationsRemote vs. conventional navigation for catheter ablation of ...

Remote vs. conventional navigation for catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation: insights from prospective registry data

Standard

Remote vs. conventional navigation for catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation: insights from prospective registry data. / van den Bruck, Jan-Hendrik; Sultan, Arian; Lüker, Jakob; Thomas, Dierk; Willems, Stephan; Weinmann, Kai; Kuniss, Malte; Hochadel, Matthias; Senges, Jochen; Andresen, Dietrich; Brachmann, Johannes; Kuck, Karl-Heinz; Tilz, Roland; Steven, Daniel.

In: CLIN RES CARDIOL, Vol. 108, No. 3, 03.2019, p. 298-308.

Research output: SCORING: Contribution to journal › SCORING: Journal article › Research › peer-review

Harvard

van den Bruck, J-H, Sultan, A, Lüker, J, Thomas, D, Willems, S, Weinmann, K, Kuniss, M, Hochadel, M, Senges, J, Andresen, D, Brachmann, J, Kuck, K-H, Tilz, R & Steven, D 2019, 'Remote vs. conventional navigation for catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation: insights from prospective registry data', CLIN RES CARDIOL, vol. 108, no. 3, pp. 298-308. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00392-018-1356-6

APA

van den Bruck, J-H., Sultan, A., Lüker, J., Thomas, D., Willems, S., Weinmann, K., Kuniss, M., Hochadel, M., Senges, J., Andresen, D., Brachmann, J., Kuck, K-H., Tilz, R., & Steven, D. (2019). Remote vs. conventional navigation for catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation: insights from prospective registry data. CLIN RES CARDIOL, 108(3), 298-308. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00392-018-1356-6

Vancouver

van den Bruck J-H, Sultan A, Lüker J, Thomas D, Willems S, Weinmann K et al. Remote vs. conventional navigation for catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation: insights from prospective registry data. CLIN RES CARDIOL. 2019 Mar;108(3):298-308. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00392-018-1356-6

Bibtex

@article{97d567d98f65426888a8ebdca191e62b,
title = "Remote vs. conventional navigation for catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation: insights from prospective registry data",
abstract = "BACKGROUND: Robotic (RNS) or magnetic navigation systems (MNS) are available for remotely performed catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF).OBJECTIVE: The present study compares remotely assisted catheter navigation (RAN) to standard manual navigation (SMN) and both systems amongst each other.METHODS: The analysis is based on a sub-cohort enrolled by five hospitals from the multicenter German ablation Registry.RESULTS: Out of 2442 patients receiving catheter ablation of AF, 267 (age 61.4 ± 10.4, 69.7% male) were treated using RAN (RNS n = 187, 7.7% vs. MNS n = 80, 3.3%). Fluoroscopy time [RNS median 17 (IQR 12-25) min vs. MNS 22 (16-32) min; p < 0.001] and procedure duration [RNS 180 (145-220) min vs. MNS 265 (210-305) min; p < 0.001] were significantly different. Comparing RAN (11%) to SMN (89%) fluoroscopy time (RAN 19 (13-27) min, vs. SMN 25 (16-40) min; p < 0.001), energy delivery (RAN 3168 (2280-3840) s vs. SMN 2640 (IQR 1799-3900) s; p = 0.008) and procedure duration [RAN 195 (150-255) min vs. SMN 150 (120-150) min; p = 0.001] differed significantly. In terms of acute and 12 months outcome, no differences were seen between the two systems or in comparison to SMN.CONCLUSION: AF ablation can be performed safely, with high acute success rates using RAN. RNS results in less fluoroscopy burden and shorter procedure durations. Compared to SMN, a reduced fluoroscopy burden, prolonged procedure and ablation duration were observed using RAN. Overall, the number of RAN procedures is small suggesting low impact on clinical routine of AF ablation.",
keywords = "Atrial Fibrillation/physiopathology, Catheter Ablation/methods, Equipment Design, Female, Fluoroscopy/methods, Follow-Up Studies, Heart Conduction System/physiopathology, Heart Rate/physiology, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Prospective Studies, Registries, Robotics/instrumentation, Surgery, Computer-Assisted/instrumentation, Treatment Outcome",
author = "{van den Bruck}, Jan-Hendrik and Arian Sultan and Jakob L{\"u}ker and Dierk Thomas and Stephan Willems and Kai Weinmann and Malte Kuniss and Matthias Hochadel and Jochen Senges and Dietrich Andresen and Johannes Brachmann and Karl-Heinz Kuck and Roland Tilz and Daniel Steven",
year = "2019",
month = mar,
doi = "10.1007/s00392-018-1356-6",
language = "English",
volume = "108",
pages = "298--308",
journal = "CLIN RES CARDIOL",
issn = "1861-0684",
publisher = "D. Steinkopff-Verlag",
number = "3",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Remote vs. conventional navigation for catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation: insights from prospective registry data

AU - van den Bruck, Jan-Hendrik

AU - Sultan, Arian

AU - Lüker, Jakob

AU - Thomas, Dierk

AU - Willems, Stephan

AU - Weinmann, Kai

AU - Kuniss, Malte

AU - Hochadel, Matthias

AU - Senges, Jochen

AU - Andresen, Dietrich

AU - Brachmann, Johannes

AU - Kuck, Karl-Heinz

AU - Tilz, Roland

AU - Steven, Daniel

PY - 2019/3

Y1 - 2019/3

N2 - BACKGROUND: Robotic (RNS) or magnetic navigation systems (MNS) are available for remotely performed catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF).OBJECTIVE: The present study compares remotely assisted catheter navigation (RAN) to standard manual navigation (SMN) and both systems amongst each other.METHODS: The analysis is based on a sub-cohort enrolled by five hospitals from the multicenter German ablation Registry.RESULTS: Out of 2442 patients receiving catheter ablation of AF, 267 (age 61.4 ± 10.4, 69.7% male) were treated using RAN (RNS n = 187, 7.7% vs. MNS n = 80, 3.3%). Fluoroscopy time [RNS median 17 (IQR 12-25) min vs. MNS 22 (16-32) min; p < 0.001] and procedure duration [RNS 180 (145-220) min vs. MNS 265 (210-305) min; p < 0.001] were significantly different. Comparing RAN (11%) to SMN (89%) fluoroscopy time (RAN 19 (13-27) min, vs. SMN 25 (16-40) min; p < 0.001), energy delivery (RAN 3168 (2280-3840) s vs. SMN 2640 (IQR 1799-3900) s; p = 0.008) and procedure duration [RAN 195 (150-255) min vs. SMN 150 (120-150) min; p = 0.001] differed significantly. In terms of acute and 12 months outcome, no differences were seen between the two systems or in comparison to SMN.CONCLUSION: AF ablation can be performed safely, with high acute success rates using RAN. RNS results in less fluoroscopy burden and shorter procedure durations. Compared to SMN, a reduced fluoroscopy burden, prolonged procedure and ablation duration were observed using RAN. Overall, the number of RAN procedures is small suggesting low impact on clinical routine of AF ablation.

AB - BACKGROUND: Robotic (RNS) or magnetic navigation systems (MNS) are available for remotely performed catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF).OBJECTIVE: The present study compares remotely assisted catheter navigation (RAN) to standard manual navigation (SMN) and both systems amongst each other.METHODS: The analysis is based on a sub-cohort enrolled by five hospitals from the multicenter German ablation Registry.RESULTS: Out of 2442 patients receiving catheter ablation of AF, 267 (age 61.4 ± 10.4, 69.7% male) were treated using RAN (RNS n = 187, 7.7% vs. MNS n = 80, 3.3%). Fluoroscopy time [RNS median 17 (IQR 12-25) min vs. MNS 22 (16-32) min; p < 0.001] and procedure duration [RNS 180 (145-220) min vs. MNS 265 (210-305) min; p < 0.001] were significantly different. Comparing RAN (11%) to SMN (89%) fluoroscopy time (RAN 19 (13-27) min, vs. SMN 25 (16-40) min; p < 0.001), energy delivery (RAN 3168 (2280-3840) s vs. SMN 2640 (IQR 1799-3900) s; p = 0.008) and procedure duration [RAN 195 (150-255) min vs. SMN 150 (120-150) min; p = 0.001] differed significantly. In terms of acute and 12 months outcome, no differences were seen between the two systems or in comparison to SMN.CONCLUSION: AF ablation can be performed safely, with high acute success rates using RAN. RNS results in less fluoroscopy burden and shorter procedure durations. Compared to SMN, a reduced fluoroscopy burden, prolonged procedure and ablation duration were observed using RAN. Overall, the number of RAN procedures is small suggesting low impact on clinical routine of AF ablation.

KW - Atrial Fibrillation/physiopathology

KW - Catheter Ablation/methods

KW - Equipment Design

KW - Female

KW - Fluoroscopy/methods

KW - Follow-Up Studies

KW - Heart Conduction System/physiopathology

KW - Heart Rate/physiology

KW - Humans

KW - Male

KW - Middle Aged

KW - Prospective Studies

KW - Registries

KW - Robotics/instrumentation

KW - Surgery, Computer-Assisted/instrumentation

KW - Treatment Outcome

U2 - 10.1007/s00392-018-1356-6

DO - 10.1007/s00392-018-1356-6

M3 - SCORING: Journal article

C2 - 30159751

VL - 108

SP - 298

EP - 308

JO - CLIN RES CARDIOL

JF - CLIN RES CARDIOL

SN - 1861-0684

IS - 3

ER -