Loading…
Remote magnetic navigation vs. manual navigation for ablation of ventricular tachycardia: a meta-analysis
Background The purpose of this study was to prospectively evaluate the efficacy and safety of remote magnetic navigation (RMN) in comparison with manual catheter navigation (MCN) in performing ventricular tachycardia ablation. Methods An electronic search was performed using PubMed (1948–2013) and E...
Saved in:
Published in: | Netherlands heart journal 2015-09, Vol.23 (10), p.485-490 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c470t-ee0057e14348140f1f5568c01b166e47f07bd477540dc2ad3a819d32c7297cc83 |
---|---|
cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c470t-ee0057e14348140f1f5568c01b166e47f07bd477540dc2ad3a819d32c7297cc83 |
container_end_page | 490 |
container_issue | 10 |
container_start_page | 485 |
container_title | Netherlands heart journal |
container_volume | 23 |
creator | Wu, Y. Li, K.-L. Zheng, J. Zhang, C.-Y. Liu, X.-Y. Cui, Z.-M. Yu, Z.-M. Wang, R.-X. Wang, W. |
description | Background
The purpose of this study was to prospectively evaluate the efficacy and safety of remote magnetic navigation (RMN) in comparison with manual catheter navigation (MCN) in performing ventricular tachycardia ablation.
Methods
An electronic search was performed using PubMed (1948–2013) and EMBASE (1974–2013) studies comparing RMN with MCN which were published prior to 31 December 2013. Outcomes of interest were as follows: acute success, recurrence rate, complications, total procedure and fluoroscopic times. Standard mean difference (SMD) and its 95 % confidence interval (CI) were used for continuous outcomes; odds ratios (OR) were reported for dichotomous variables.
Results
Four non-randomised studies, including a total of 328 patients, were identified. RMN was deployed in 191 patients. Acute success and long-term freedom from arrhythmias were not significantly different between the RMN and control groups (OR 1.845, 95 % CI 0.731–4.659,
p
= 0.195 and OR 0.676, 95 % CI 0.383–1.194,
p
= 0.177, respectively). RMN was associated with less peri-procedural complications (OR 0.279, 95 % CI 0.092–0.843,
p
= 0.024). Shorter procedural and fluoroscopy times were achieved (95 % CI -0.487 to -0.035,
p
= 0.024 and 95 % CI -1.467 to -0.984,
p |
doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s12471-015-0734-1 |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4580670</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2788792616</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c470t-ee0057e14348140f1f5568c01b166e47f07bd477540dc2ad3a819d32c7297cc83</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kV1rFTEQhoMotlZ_gDey4I03qZlsvtYLoRQ_CoVC0eswJ5s9TdlNarJ74Px7c9haq9CrJDPPvHmHl5C3wE6BMf2xABcaKANJmW4FhWfkGIxWVHHJnte7VIZKY8wReVXKLWNSc9AvyRFXHCTv4JiEaz-l2TcTbqOfg2si7sIW55BisyuntR4XHB9Xh5Qb3IzrIw3Nzsc5B7eMmJsZ3c3eYe4DfmqwmfyMFCOO-xLKa_JiwLH4N_fnCfn59cuP8-_08urbxfnZJXVCs5l6f7DpQbTCgGADDLJu4RhsQCkv9MD0phdaS8F6x7Fv0UDXt9xp3mnnTHtCPq-6d8tm8r072MPR3uUwYd7bhMH-24nhxm7TzgppmNKsCny4F8jp1-LLbKdQnB9HjD4txYIG1bVSdbKi7_9Db9OS68LFcm2M7rgCVSlYKZdTKdkPD2aA2UOQdg3S1iDtIUgLdebd4y0eJv4kVwG-AqW24tbnv18_rfobRlmp1g</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2788792616</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Remote magnetic navigation vs. manual navigation for ablation of ventricular tachycardia: a meta-analysis</title><source>Access via ProQuest (Open Access)</source><source>Springer Nature - SpringerLink Journals - Fully Open Access </source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Wu, Y. ; Li, K.-L. ; Zheng, J. ; Zhang, C.-Y. ; Liu, X.-Y. ; Cui, Z.-M. ; Yu, Z.-M. ; Wang, R.-X. ; Wang, W.</creator><creatorcontrib>Wu, Y. ; Li, K.-L. ; Zheng, J. ; Zhang, C.-Y. ; Liu, X.-Y. ; Cui, Z.-M. ; Yu, Z.-M. ; Wang, R.-X. ; Wang, W.</creatorcontrib><description>Background
The purpose of this study was to prospectively evaluate the efficacy and safety of remote magnetic navigation (RMN) in comparison with manual catheter navigation (MCN) in performing ventricular tachycardia ablation.
Methods
An electronic search was performed using PubMed (1948–2013) and EMBASE (1974–2013) studies comparing RMN with MCN which were published prior to 31 December 2013. Outcomes of interest were as follows: acute success, recurrence rate, complications, total procedure and fluoroscopic times. Standard mean difference (SMD) and its 95 % confidence interval (CI) were used for continuous outcomes; odds ratios (OR) were reported for dichotomous variables.
Results
Four non-randomised studies, including a total of 328 patients, were identified. RMN was deployed in 191 patients. Acute success and long-term freedom from arrhythmias were not significantly different between the RMN and control groups (OR 1.845, 95 % CI 0.731–4.659,
p
= 0.195 and OR 0.676, 95 % CI 0.383–1.194,
p
= 0.177, respectively). RMN was associated with less peri-procedural complications (OR 0.279, 95 % CI 0.092–0.843,
p
= 0.024). Shorter procedural and fluoroscopy times were achieved (95 % CI -0.487 to -0.035,
p
= 0.024 and 95 % CI -1.467 to -0.984,
p
<0.001, respectively).
Conclusion
The acute and long-term success rates for VT ablation are equal between RMN and MCN, whereas the RMN-guided procedure can be performed with a lower complication rate and less procedural and fluoroscopic times. More prospective randomised trials will be needed to better evaluate the superior role of RMN for catheter ablation of ventricular tachycardia.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1568-5888</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1876-6250</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s12471-015-0734-1</identifier><identifier>PMID: 26215291</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Houten: Bohn Stafleu van Loghum</publisher><subject>Ablation ; Cardiac arrhythmia ; Cardiology ; Catheters ; Confidence intervals ; Medical Education ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Meta-analysis ; Original - Design Study ; Original Article - Design Study Article ; Radiation ; Success</subject><ispartof>Netherlands heart journal, 2015-09, Vol.23 (10), p.485-490</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2015</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2015. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c470t-ee0057e14348140f1f5568c01b166e47f07bd477540dc2ad3a819d32c7297cc83</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c470t-ee0057e14348140f1f5568c01b166e47f07bd477540dc2ad3a819d32c7297cc83</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2788792616/fulltextPDF?pq-origsite=primo$$EPDF$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2788792616?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,885,25753,27924,27925,37012,37013,44590,53791,53793,75126</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26215291$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Wu, Y.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Li, K.-L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zheng, J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhang, C.-Y.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Liu, X.-Y.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cui, Z.-M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yu, Z.-M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, R.-X.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, W.</creatorcontrib><title>Remote magnetic navigation vs. manual navigation for ablation of ventricular tachycardia: a meta-analysis</title><title>Netherlands heart journal</title><addtitle>Neth Heart J</addtitle><addtitle>Neth Heart J</addtitle><description>Background
The purpose of this study was to prospectively evaluate the efficacy and safety of remote magnetic navigation (RMN) in comparison with manual catheter navigation (MCN) in performing ventricular tachycardia ablation.
Methods
An electronic search was performed using PubMed (1948–2013) and EMBASE (1974–2013) studies comparing RMN with MCN which were published prior to 31 December 2013. Outcomes of interest were as follows: acute success, recurrence rate, complications, total procedure and fluoroscopic times. Standard mean difference (SMD) and its 95 % confidence interval (CI) were used for continuous outcomes; odds ratios (OR) were reported for dichotomous variables.
Results
Four non-randomised studies, including a total of 328 patients, were identified. RMN was deployed in 191 patients. Acute success and long-term freedom from arrhythmias were not significantly different between the RMN and control groups (OR 1.845, 95 % CI 0.731–4.659,
p
= 0.195 and OR 0.676, 95 % CI 0.383–1.194,
p
= 0.177, respectively). RMN was associated with less peri-procedural complications (OR 0.279, 95 % CI 0.092–0.843,
p
= 0.024). Shorter procedural and fluoroscopy times were achieved (95 % CI -0.487 to -0.035,
p
= 0.024 and 95 % CI -1.467 to -0.984,
p
<0.001, respectively).
Conclusion
The acute and long-term success rates for VT ablation are equal between RMN and MCN, whereas the RMN-guided procedure can be performed with a lower complication rate and less procedural and fluoroscopic times. More prospective randomised trials will be needed to better evaluate the superior role of RMN for catheter ablation of ventricular tachycardia.</description><subject>Ablation</subject><subject>Cardiac arrhythmia</subject><subject>Cardiology</subject><subject>Catheters</subject><subject>Confidence intervals</subject><subject>Medical Education</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Meta-analysis</subject><subject>Original - Design Study</subject><subject>Original Article - Design Study Article</subject><subject>Radiation</subject><subject>Success</subject><issn>1568-5888</issn><issn>1876-6250</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>PIMPY</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kV1rFTEQhoMotlZ_gDey4I03qZlsvtYLoRQ_CoVC0eswJ5s9TdlNarJ74Px7c9haq9CrJDPPvHmHl5C3wE6BMf2xABcaKANJmW4FhWfkGIxWVHHJnte7VIZKY8wReVXKLWNSc9AvyRFXHCTv4JiEaz-l2TcTbqOfg2si7sIW55BisyuntR4XHB9Xh5Qb3IzrIw3Nzsc5B7eMmJsZ3c3eYe4DfmqwmfyMFCOO-xLKa_JiwLH4N_fnCfn59cuP8-_08urbxfnZJXVCs5l6f7DpQbTCgGADDLJu4RhsQCkv9MD0phdaS8F6x7Fv0UDXt9xp3mnnTHtCPq-6d8tm8r072MPR3uUwYd7bhMH-24nhxm7TzgppmNKsCny4F8jp1-LLbKdQnB9HjD4txYIG1bVSdbKi7_9Db9OS68LFcm2M7rgCVSlYKZdTKdkPD2aA2UOQdg3S1iDtIUgLdebd4y0eJv4kVwG-AqW24tbnv18_rfobRlmp1g</recordid><startdate>20150901</startdate><enddate>20150901</enddate><creator>Wu, Y.</creator><creator>Li, K.-L.</creator><creator>Zheng, J.</creator><creator>Zhang, C.-Y.</creator><creator>Liu, X.-Y.</creator><creator>Cui, Z.-M.</creator><creator>Yu, Z.-M.</creator><creator>Wang, R.-X.</creator><creator>Wang, W.</creator><general>Bohn Stafleu van Loghum</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>C6C</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20150901</creationdate><title>Remote magnetic navigation vs. manual navigation for ablation of ventricular tachycardia: a meta-analysis</title><author>Wu, Y. ; Li, K.-L. ; Zheng, J. ; Zhang, C.-Y. ; Liu, X.-Y. ; Cui, Z.-M. ; Yu, Z.-M. ; Wang, R.-X. ; Wang, W.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c470t-ee0057e14348140f1f5568c01b166e47f07bd477540dc2ad3a819d32c7297cc83</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Ablation</topic><topic>Cardiac arrhythmia</topic><topic>Cardiology</topic><topic>Catheters</topic><topic>Confidence intervals</topic><topic>Medical Education</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Meta-analysis</topic><topic>Original - Design Study</topic><topic>Original Article - Design Study Article</topic><topic>Radiation</topic><topic>Success</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Wu, Y.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Li, K.-L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zheng, J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhang, C.-Y.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Liu, X.-Y.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cui, Z.-M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yu, Z.-M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, R.-X.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, W.</creatorcontrib><collection>Springer Nature OA Free Journals</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Access via ProQuest (Open Access)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Netherlands heart journal</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Wu, Y.</au><au>Li, K.-L.</au><au>Zheng, J.</au><au>Zhang, C.-Y.</au><au>Liu, X.-Y.</au><au>Cui, Z.-M.</au><au>Yu, Z.-M.</au><au>Wang, R.-X.</au><au>Wang, W.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Remote magnetic navigation vs. manual navigation for ablation of ventricular tachycardia: a meta-analysis</atitle><jtitle>Netherlands heart journal</jtitle><stitle>Neth Heart J</stitle><addtitle>Neth Heart J</addtitle><date>2015-09-01</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>23</volume><issue>10</issue><spage>485</spage><epage>490</epage><pages>485-490</pages><issn>1568-5888</issn><eissn>1876-6250</eissn><abstract>Background
The purpose of this study was to prospectively evaluate the efficacy and safety of remote magnetic navigation (RMN) in comparison with manual catheter navigation (MCN) in performing ventricular tachycardia ablation.
Methods
An electronic search was performed using PubMed (1948–2013) and EMBASE (1974–2013) studies comparing RMN with MCN which were published prior to 31 December 2013. Outcomes of interest were as follows: acute success, recurrence rate, complications, total procedure and fluoroscopic times. Standard mean difference (SMD) and its 95 % confidence interval (CI) were used for continuous outcomes; odds ratios (OR) were reported for dichotomous variables.
Results
Four non-randomised studies, including a total of 328 patients, were identified. RMN was deployed in 191 patients. Acute success and long-term freedom from arrhythmias were not significantly different between the RMN and control groups (OR 1.845, 95 % CI 0.731–4.659,
p
= 0.195 and OR 0.676, 95 % CI 0.383–1.194,
p
= 0.177, respectively). RMN was associated with less peri-procedural complications (OR 0.279, 95 % CI 0.092–0.843,
p
= 0.024). Shorter procedural and fluoroscopy times were achieved (95 % CI -0.487 to -0.035,
p
= 0.024 and 95 % CI -1.467 to -0.984,
p
<0.001, respectively).
Conclusion
The acute and long-term success rates for VT ablation are equal between RMN and MCN, whereas the RMN-guided procedure can be performed with a lower complication rate and less procedural and fluoroscopic times. More prospective randomised trials will be needed to better evaluate the superior role of RMN for catheter ablation of ventricular tachycardia.</abstract><cop>Houten</cop><pub>Bohn Stafleu van Loghum</pub><pmid>26215291</pmid><doi>10.1007/s12471-015-0734-1</doi><tpages>6</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1568-5888 |
ispartof | Netherlands heart journal, 2015-09, Vol.23 (10), p.485-490 |
issn | 1568-5888 1876-6250 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4580670 |
source | Access via ProQuest (Open Access); Springer Nature - SpringerLink Journals - Fully Open Access ; PubMed Central |
subjects | Ablation Cardiac arrhythmia Cardiology Catheters Confidence intervals Medical Education Medicine Medicine & Public Health Meta-analysis Original - Design Study Original Article - Design Study Article Radiation Success |
title | Remote magnetic navigation vs. manual navigation for ablation of ventricular tachycardia: a meta-analysis |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-28T03%3A30%3A37IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Remote%20magnetic%20navigation%20vs.%20manual%20navigation%20for%20ablation%20of%20ventricular%20tachycardia:%20a%20meta-analysis&rft.jtitle=Netherlands%20heart%20journal&rft.au=Wu,%20Y.&rft.date=2015-09-01&rft.volume=23&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=485&rft.epage=490&rft.pages=485-490&rft.issn=1568-5888&rft.eissn=1876-6250&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s12471-015-0734-1&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2788792616%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c470t-ee0057e14348140f1f5568c01b166e47f07bd477540dc2ad3a819d32c7297cc83%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2788792616&rft_id=info:pmid/26215291&rfr_iscdi=true |