Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Observational Study
. 2013 Nov;36(11):1364-72.
doi: 10.1111/pace.12201. Epub 2013 Jun 10.

Mitral isthmus ablation is feasible, efficacious, and safe using a remote robotic catheter system

Affiliations
Observational Study

Mitral isthmus ablation is feasible, efficacious, and safe using a remote robotic catheter system

Kelvin C K Wong et al. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2013 Nov.

Abstract

Background: There are limited data on the use of a remote robotic catheter system (RCS) for mitral isthmus (MI) ablation.

Methods: This single-center, prospective, matched control study included 45 patients who underwent atrial fibrillation ablation using a remote RCS compared to 45 patients who underwent conventional ablation. All patients had circumferential pulmonary vein isolation (PVI), roof, and MI ablation.

Results: There were no significant differences in baseline clinical characteristics. There were no significant differences in MI block (RCS: 44/45 [98%] vs

Control: 43/45 [96%], P = 1.0), roof block (RCS: 45/45 [100%] vs

Control: 44/45 [98%], P = 1.0), and PVI (RCS: 45/45 [100%] vs

Control: 45/45 [100%], P = 1.0). Ablation and procedural times were similar in both arms. Using RCS, mean total MI ablation and procedure times were 13 ± 6 minutes and 23 ± 15 minutes, respectively. Coronary sinus (CS) ablation was significantly less in the RCS arm (48% vs 72%, P = 0.03). It was possible to "drive" the ablation catheter into the distal CS using the RCS in 19/22 (86%) patients. There was a significant trend of reduction in mean MI ablation (P = 0.008) and procedural times (P = 0.004) over the course of the study period. There was a significant reduction in fluoroscopy time in the RNS arm (33 ± 17 minutes vs 49 ± 20 minutes, P = 0.0004).

Conclusion: It is feasible and safe to use a remote RCS for MI ablation, including "driving into the CS." MI block was achieved in 98% with a significant reduction in the need for CS ablation (48%). There is a short learning curve.

Keywords: atrial fibrillation; mitral isthmus; radiofrequency ablation; robotic catheter system.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources