A Comparison of Remote Magnetic Irrigated Tip Ablation versus Manual Catheter Irrigated Tip Catheter Ablation With and Without Force Sensing Feedback

Comparison of Remote Magnetic Irrigated Tip BackgroundRemote magnetic navigation (RMN) and contact force (CF) sensing technologies have been utilized in an effort to improve safety and efficacy of catheter ablation. A comparative analysis of the relative short- and long-term outcomes of AF patients has not been performed. As such, we comparatively evaluated the safety and efficacy of these technologies. MethodsA total of 627 patients who underwent catheter ablation with either a manual irrigated tip catheter: (312, 49.8%) or by RMN: (315, 50.2%) were included in this single-center cohort study. Patients treated with CF (59) were analyzed separately as well. One- and 3-year endpoints included death, HF hospitalization, stroke, TIA, and atrial flutter or AF recurrence. ResultsAge averaged 65.1 10.7 years and 64.1% male. One- and 3-year endpoints of death, HF hospitalization, stroke, TIA, and atrial flutter or AF recurrence were statistically similar between manual and RMN treated groups. Fluoroscopy times were significantly lower in the RMN group compared to the manual ablation group (8.47 +/- 0.45 vs. 9.63 +/- 4.06 minutes, P < 0.0001). CF guided patients had 1-year recurrence rate of AF/atrial flutter statistically identical to patients treated with RMN (36.8% vs. 38.6%; P = 1.00). ConclusionRMN results in outcomes similar to manual navigation. The addition of CF sensing catheters did not improve relative procedural outcome or safety profile in comparison to RMN guided ablation in this large observational study of AF ablation.