MedElevator Войти в исследования
← Поиск публикаций

DOI 10.1016/j.jacep.2017.01.024

Медицинская библиотека · JACC. Clinical electrophysiology · 2017

Manual Versus Robotic Catheter Ablation for the Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation: The Man and Machine Trial.

Rillig Andreas, Schmidt Boris, Di Biase Luigi, Lin Tina, Scholz Leonie, Heeger Christian H, Metzner Andreas, Steven Daniel, Wohlmuth Peter, Willems Stephan, Trivedi Chintan, Galllinghouse Joseph G, Natale Andrea, Ouyang Feifan, Kuck Karl-Heinz, Tilz Roland Richard

Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАПеревод пока не подготовлен

Аннотация

OBJECTIVES

Circumferential pulmonary vein isolation (CPVI) using irrigated radiofrequency is the most frequently used ablation technique for the treatment of atrial fibrillation worldwide.

BACKGROUND

To date, no large randomized multicenter trials have evaluated the efficacy and safety of CPVI using robotic navigation (RN) systems compared with the current gold standard of manual ablation (MN).

METHODS

In this prospective, international multicenter noninferiority trial, 258 patients with paroxysmal or persistent atrial fibrillation were randomized for CPVI using either RN (RN group, n = 131) or manual ablation (MN group, n = 127). In all patients, CPVI was performed using irrigated radiofrequency ablation in combination with a 3-dimensional mapping system. The primary endpoint was the absence of atrial arrhythmia recurrence on or off antiarrhythmic drugs during a 12-month follow-up period. Secondary endpoints were the evaluation of periprocedural complications and procedural data such as procedure time, fluoroscopy time, and incidence of esophageal injury.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were comparable between the RN group and MN group. Procedure time was significantly shorter in the MN group (129.3 ± 43.1 min vs. 140.9 ± 36.5 min; p = 0.026). 247 patients completed the 12-month follow-up (RN group, n = 123; MN group, n = 124). Recurrence rate was comparable between the RN and MN groups (n = 29 of 123 [23.6%] vs. 25 of 124 [20.2%]). The incidence of procedure-related major complications did not differ significantly between ablation arms (RN group, n = 8 [6.1%] vs. MN group, n = 6 [4.7%]; p = 0.62). One patient from the RN group developed a fatal atrioesophageal fistula.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated that robotic ablation is noninferior to the current gold standard of manual ablation for CPVI with respect to success and complication rates. Procedure times were significantly longer in the RN group. (Alster Man and Machine: Comparison of Manual and Mechanical Remote Robotic Catheter Ablation for Drug-Refractory Atrial Fibrillation; NCT00982475).

Для цитирования: Rillig Andreas, Schmidt Boris, Di Biase Luigi, Lin Tina, Scholz Leonie, Heeger Christian H, Metzner Andreas, Steven Daniel, Wohlmuth Peter, Willems Stephan, Trivedi Chintan, Galllinghouse Joseph G, Natale Andrea, Ouyang Feifan, Kuck Karl-Heinz, Tilz Roland Richard. Manual Versus Robotic Catheter Ablation for the Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation: The Man and Machine Trial.. JACC. Clinical electrophysiology. 2017. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacep.2017.01.024.

Предметные рубрики MeSH

Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

История · было → стало

Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.

Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.