Remote magnetic navigation versus manual control navigation for atrial fibrillation ablation: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND

The aim of this review was to evaluate the efficacy and safety between remote magnetic navigation (RMN) and manual control navigation (MCN) for atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane library databases using the key words AF, ablation and magnetic navigation.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies were identified in this analysis including 4046 patients comparing RMN and MCN in AF ablation, which were all non-randomized controlled studies. No significant difference of AF recurrence rate (40% vs. 38%, OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.82-1.22, p = 0. 97) and acute success rate in achieving pulmonary vein isolation (91% vs. 93%, OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.16-1.17, p = 0.10) was found between RMN and MCN. However, compared with MCN, RMN was associated with significantly lower complication rate (2% vs. 5%, OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.28-0.69, p = 0. 0003) and shorter fluoroscopy time (MD -9.71 min, 95% CI -15.80 to -3.63, p = 0.002). Procedure time (MD 47.05 min, 95% CI 27.5-66.58, p < 0.00001) and ablation time (MD 15.90 min, 95% CI 9.62-22.18, p < 0.00001) of RMN guided AF ablation were significantly longer than those of MCN.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study suggest that RMN is as effective as MCN in achieving pulmonary vein isolation and freedom from AF recurrence, and has superior safety with less complications and shorter fluoroscopy time.