Objective The purpose of this study was to compare remote magnetic catheter navigation with manual navigation for the ablation of atrioventricular nodal reentry tachycardia （AVNRT）. Methods From November 2007 to Nov...Objective The purpose of this study was to compare remote magnetic catheter navigation with manual navigation for the ablation of atrioventricular nodal reentry tachycardia （AVNRT）. Methods From November 2007 to November 2009, 30 consecutive patients with AVNRT received radiofrequency ablation in the Institute of Geriatric Cardiology. Of them, 14 were treated with remote magnetic navigation （RMN） and 16 with manual catheter navigation （MCN）. Total fluoroscopic time,procedure time, procedural success rate, and complication rate were compared between the two groups. Results Total fluoroscopy time and precise orientation time were reduced in RMN group compared to MCN group （7.5＋0.3 min vs 13.9~5.3 rain, and 1.0-x-0.3 min vs 3.2：~0.6 min, respectively, both P〈0.05）. Procedural success rates in both groups were 100% and no AVNRT recurred in all patients during 3 months＇ follow-up. The number of lesions delivered was less for RMN group （3.4~1.1 vs 6.3＋2.2, P〈0.05）. Total procedure time （25.6~7.5 rain vs 27.5a：6.2 rain,/〉〉0.05） was similar between the 2 groups. No procedural complications occurred in both groups. Conclusions RMN for mapping and ablation of AVNRT significantly reduce precise orientation time, total fluoroscopy time and number of lesions delivered compared to the conventional technique of manual steering of deflectable catheters. Remote magnetic control mapping and ablation of AVNRT is more safe and feasible （J Geriatr Cardio12010; 7：7-9）.展开更多
文摘Objective The purpose of this study was to compare remote magnetic catheter navigation with manual navigation for the ablation of atrioventricular nodal reentry tachycardia （AVNRT）. Methods From November 2007 to November 2009, 30 consecutive patients with AVNRT received radiofrequency ablation in the Institute of Geriatric Cardiology. Of them, 14 were treated with remote magnetic navigation （RMN） and 16 with manual catheter navigation （MCN）. Total fluoroscopic time,procedure time, procedural success rate, and complication rate were compared between the two groups. Results Total fluoroscopy time and precise orientation time were reduced in RMN group compared to MCN group （7.5＋0.3 min vs 13.9~5.3 rain, and 1.0-x-0.3 min vs 3.2：~0.6 min, respectively, both P〈0.05）. Procedural success rates in both groups were 100% and no AVNRT recurred in all patients during 3 months＇ follow-up. The number of lesions delivered was less for RMN group （3.4~1.1 vs 6.3＋2.2, P〈0.05）. Total procedure time （25.6~7.5 rain vs 27.5a：6.2 rain,/〉〉0.05） was similar between the 2 groups. No procedural complications occurred in both groups. Conclusions RMN for mapping and ablation of AVNRT significantly reduce precise orientation time, total fluoroscopy time and number of lesions delivered compared to the conventional technique of manual steering of deflectable catheters. Remote magnetic control mapping and ablation of AVNRT is more safe and feasible （J Geriatr Cardio12010; 7：7-9）.
