Initial experience of a novel mapping system combined with remote magnetic navigation in the catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND

There have been advancements of sophisticated mapping systems used for ablation procedures over the last decade. Utilization of these novel mapping systems in combination with remote magnetic navigation (RMN) needs to be established. We investigated the new EnSite Precision mapping system (St. Jude Medical, Inc., St. Paul, MN, USA), which collects magnetic data for checking navigation field stability and is built on an open platform, allowing physicians to choose diagnostic and ablation catheters. We address its compatibility with RMN.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the clinical utility of a novel 3D mapping system (EnSite Precision mapping system) combined with RMN (Niobe ES, Stereotaxis, Inc., St. Louis, MO, USA) for atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation.

METHODS

In this prospective nonrandomized study, two groups of patients were treated in our center for drug refractory AF. Patients were consecutively enrolled in each group. Group A (n = 35, 14 persistent AF [PsAF]) was treated using the novel 3D mapping system combined with RMN. Group B (n = 38, 16 PsAF) was treated using Carto 3 (Biosense Webster, Inc., Diamond Bar, CA, USA) combined with RMN. In Group A, the left atrium (LA) was mapped with a circular magnetic catheter manually and was then replaced by a RMN ablation catheter. At the end of the procedures in Group A, the circular catheter was used for confirming field stability. In Group B, an ablation catheter was controlled by RMN to perform both LA mapping and ablation. All patients underwent pulmonary vein antrum isolation. Additional complex fractionated atrial electrograms (CFAEs) ablation was performed for PsAF. Procedural, ablation, and fluoroscopy times were recorded and complications were assessed.

RESULTS

Electrophysiological end points were achieved in all patients. Using the novel mapping system, LA mapping time was fast (308 ± 60 seconds) with detailed anatomy points (178,831 ± 70,897) collected and magnetic points throughout LA. At the end of the procedures in Group A, the LA model was confirmed to be stable and its location was within the distance threshold (1 mm). Procedure time (117.9 ± 29.6 minutes vs. 119.2 ± 29.7 minutes, P = 0.89), fluoroscopy time (6.1 ± 2.4 minutes vs. 4.8 ± 2.2 minutes, P = 0.07), and ablation time (28.0 ± 12.9 minutes vs. 27.9 ± 15.8 minutes, P = 0.98) were similar in Group A versus Group B, respectively. No complications occurred in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

LA mapped by the novel system is stable and reliable. Combined with RMN, it could be effectively used for AF ablation without impacting overall procedural times.