Remote magnetic with open-irrigated catheter vs. manual navigation for ablation of atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to determine the efficacy and safety of remote magnetic navigation (RMN) with open-irrigated catheter vs. manual catheter navigation (MCN) in performing atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation. We searched in PubMed (1948-2013) and EMBASE (1974-2013) studies comparing RMN with MCN. Outcomes considered were AF recurrence (primary outcome), pulmonary vein isolation (PVI), procedural complications, and data on procedure's performance. Odds ratios (OR) and mean difference (MD) were extracted and pooled using a random-effect model. Confidence in the estimates of the obtained effects (quality of evidence) was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. We identified seven controlled trials, six non-randomized and one randomized, including a total of 941 patients. Studies were at high risk of bias. No difference was observed between RMN and MCN on AF recurrence [OR 1.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 1.65, P = 0.32] or PVI (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.11-1.47, P = 0.17). Remote magnetic navigation was associated with less peri-procedural complications (Peto OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.19-0.88, P = 0.02). Mean fluoroscopy time was reduced in RMN group (-22.22 min; 95% CI -42.48 to -1.96, P = 0.03), although the overall duration of the procedure was longer (60.91 min; 95% CI 31.17 to 90.65, P < 0.0001). In conclusion, RMN is not superior to MCN in achieving freedom from recurrent AF at mid-term follow-up or PVI. The procedure implies less peri-procedural complications, requires a shorter fluoroscopy time but a longer total procedural time. For the low quality of the available evidence, a proper designed randomized controlled trial could turn the direction and the effect of the dimensions explored.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.035 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".