Department of Cardiology and Pneumology, Heart Center, Georg-August-University Göttingen, Robert-Koch-Str. 40, 37075 Göttingen, Germany.
Europace. 2010 Nov;12(11):1574-80. doi: 10.1093/europace/euq300. Epub 2010 Sep 1.
Remote magnetic catheter navigation (RMN) may facilitate catheter ablation. However, as the system uses permanent magnets, interference (INF) with devices for pacing [pacemaker (PM)], defibrillation [implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD)], or cardiac resynchronisation [cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT)] may occur. We investigated the effects of the RMN system on implanted arrhythmia devices in a prospective series.
Prior to RMN-guided electrophysiological procedures, devices were fully interrogated and programmed to VVI 40/min with tachycardia detection off (if applicable). Periprocedural device performance was monitored by 12-lead electrocardiogram, and duration and effect of asynchronous stimulation resulting from INF were evaluated. Following the procedure, devices were again interrogated and system integrity verified. A total of 21 procedures in 18 patients with implanted devices [PM n = 12, ICD n = 3, CRT-pacemaker (P) n = 1, CRT-defibrillation (D) n = 2] were evaluated. No relevant changes in lead parameters or device programming were observed after the procedure. No INF was noted in ICD/CRT-D devices (tachycardia detection off) and in 2 PMs, whereas 10 PMs and 1 CRT-P switched to asynchronous stimulation for 1.8 ± 0.3 h (63 ± 13% of RMN duration) without clinical adverse effects. In one patient, ventricular tachycardia (VT) degenerating in ventricular fibrillation occurred, but no causal relation between INF and VT initiation could be ascertained.
This prospective data provide no evidence that using RMN in patients with implanted arrhythmia devices may cause persistent device dysfunction. Asynchronous PM stimulation is common without negative clinical consequences. Although a causal role of INF for the VT observed seems unlikely, risks and benefits of RMN utilization should carefully be weighed for each patient with an implanted arrhythmia device.
远程磁导管导航(RMN)可能有助于导管消融。然而,由于该系统使用永磁体,可能会对起搏器(PM)、除颤器[植入式心脏复律除颤器(ICD)]或心脏再同步治疗(CRT)等设备产生干扰(INF)。我们前瞻性地研究了 RMN 系统对植入式心律失常设备的影响。
在 RMN 引导的电生理程序之前,对设备进行了全面检查,并程控为 VVI 40/min,心动过速检测关闭(如果适用)。通过 12 导联心电图监测围手术期设备性能,并评估 INF 引起的异步刺激的持续时间和效果。手术后,再次对设备进行检查并验证系统完整性。总共对 18 例植入设备的患者(PM n = 12、ICD n = 3、CRT-起搏器(P)n = 1、CRT-除颤器(D)n = 2)进行了 21 次手术。手术后,没有观察到导联参数或设备编程有任何相关变化。在 ICD/CRT-D 设备(心动过速检测关闭)和 2 个 PM 中没有观察到 INF,而 10 个 PM 和 1 个 CRT-P 在没有临床不良影响的情况下切换为异步刺激 1.8 ± 0.3 h(RMN 持续时间的 63 ± 13%)。在一名患者中,发生了从室性心动过速(VT)演变为心室颤动的 VT,但不能确定 INF 和 VT 发作之间的因果关系。
本前瞻性数据并未表明在植入心律失常设备的患者中使用 RMN 可能导致持续的设备功能障碍。异步 PM 刺激很常见,但没有临床不良后果。虽然观察到的 VT 与 INF 之间的因果关系似乎不太可能,但对于每个植入心律失常设备的患者,应仔细权衡 RMN 应用的风险和益处。