Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE · 2021
Outcomes of manual versus remote magnetic navigation for catheter ablation of ventricular tachycardia: a systematic review and updated meta-analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
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.
Blandino Alessandro, Bianchi Francesca, Sibona Masi Andrea, Mazzanti Andrea, D'Ascenzo Fabrizio, Grossi Stefano, Musumeci Giuseppe
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Ventricular tachycardia (VT) ablation is a complex procedure that requires remarkable catheter manipulation skill, great mapping accuracy and catheter stability, and can expose patients to serious complications. Magnetic navigation system (RMN)-guided ablation and contact force-sensing (CFS) catheters have the potential to overcome these obstacles. We performed a systematic review and updated meta-analysis of all available studies evaluating the outcomes of VT ablation by using RMN-guided compared to manual navigation (MAN)-guided, with and without CFS catheters.
METHODS: MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane, and Google Scholar were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCT) or observational studies with multivariate adjustment comparing RMN-guided versus MAN-guided VT ablation.
RESULTS: Thirteen studies enrolling 1348 patients (656 RMN-guided vs. 692 MAN-guided) were included. CFS catheter were used in 14% of MAN-guided patients. In comparison to MAN-guided and CFS-guided, RMN-guided VT ablation was associated with a significant higher acute ablation success (OR 2.32, 1.66-3.23 and OR 2.91, 1.29-6.53, respectively) but similar results in term of long-term VT recurrence (OR 0.75, 0.56-1.01 and OR 0.79, 0.27-2.36, respectively). RMN-guided showed a better safety profile (for all complications, OR 0.52, 0.34-0.81) and allowed a significant x-ray reduction compared to MAN-guided (OR 0.21, 0.14-0.32) and CFS-guided VT ablation (OR 0.23, 0.11-0.52, all 95% CI).
CONCLUSIONS: RMN-guided was superior to MAN-guided and CFS-guided VT ablation in term of acute ablation success, all complications endpoint, and reduction of fluoroscopy exposure, but did not reduce long-term VT recurrence. Large prospective multicenter randomized trials are needed to confirm these findings.
METHODS: MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane, and Google Scholar were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCT) or observational studies with multivariate adjustment comparing RMN-guided versus MAN-guided VT ablation.
RESULTS: Thirteen studies enrolling 1348 patients (656 RMN-guided vs. 692 MAN-guided) were included. CFS catheter were used in 14% of MAN-guided patients. In comparison to MAN-guided and CFS-guided, RMN-guided VT ablation was associated with a significant higher acute ablation success (OR 2.32, 1.66-3.23 and OR 2.91, 1.29-6.53, respectively) but similar results in term of long-term VT recurrence (OR 0.75, 0.56-1.01 and OR 0.79, 0.27-2.36, respectively). RMN-guided showed a better safety profile (for all complications, OR 0.52, 0.34-0.81) and allowed a significant x-ray reduction compared to MAN-guided (OR 0.21, 0.14-0.32) and CFS-guided VT ablation (OR 0.23, 0.11-0.52, all 95% CI).
CONCLUSIONS: RMN-guided was superior to MAN-guided and CFS-guided VT ablation in term of acute ablation success, all complications endpoint, and reduction of fluoroscopy exposure, but did not reduce long-term VT recurrence. Large prospective multicenter randomized trials are needed to confirm these findings.