Evidence Hub

Safety of remote magnetic navigation in patients with pacemakers and implanted cardioverter defibrillators

Eitel C, Hindricks G, Sommer P, Wetzel U, Bollmann A, Gaspar T, Piorkowski C, Arya A

Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology, 2010

31 participants

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Remote magnetic catheter navigation (MNS) has been shown to be feasible and safe for radiofrequency catheter ablation of various cardiac arrhythmias. However, its safety in patients with implanted pacemakers or cardioverter-defibrillators has not yet been studied.

OBJECTIVES: This retrospective case series study intends to assess the acute and short-term safety of remote MNS in patients with implanted pacemakers or cardioverter-defibrillators.

METHODS: Between January 2008 and June 2009, a total of 31 patients with implanted pacemakers (n = 5) or cardioverter-defibrillators (n = 26) underwent 32 catheter ablation procedures using the remote MNS. Baseline pacing thresholds, sensed amplitudes, pacing and, if available, shock impedances as well as battery status were measured in all devices before, immediately after, and 1-3 months after catheter ablation.

RESULTS: After ablation, no statistically significant difference in atrial sensing (2.7 ± 1.5 mV vs 3.1 ± 1.9 mV, P = 0.18) and impedance (457 ± 104 Ω vs 449 ± 101 Ω, P = 0.37) were observed. After ablation, no statistically significant difference in right ventricular sensing (10.4 ± 3.8 mV vs 10.9 ± 4.9 mV, P = 0.43) and impedance (535 ± 118 Ω vs 534 ± 120 Ω, P = 0.913) were observed. No changes in pacing threshold could be observed in all but 2 patients with biventricular cardioverter-defibrillators who underwent ventricular tachycardia ablation in lateral wall of left ventricle near the implanted epicardial…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case series, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health. Reported size: 31 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free