a comparison of remote magnetic irrigated tip ablation versus manual catheter irrigated tip catheter ablation with and w.比较偏远的磁灌溉冰山消融和人工灌溉提示导管消融导管有无力传感.Image.Marked.pdf

S5 A Comparison of Remote Magnetic Irrigated Tip Ablation versus Manual Catheter Irrigated Tip Catheter Ablation With and Without Force Sensing Feedback J. PETER WEISS, M.D.,∗ HEIDI T. MAY, Ph.D., M.S.P.H.,∗ TAMI L. BAIR, B.S.,∗ BRIAN G. CRANDALL, M.D.,∗ MICHAEL J. CUTLER, D.O., Ph.D.,∗ JOHN D. DAY, M.D.,∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ JEFFREY S. OSBORN, M.D., CHARLES MALLENDER, M.D., and T. JARED BUNCH, M.D. ,† From the ∗Intermountain Medical Center, Intermountain Medical Center Heart Institute, Murray, Utah, USA; and †Department of Internal Medicine, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California, USA Comparison of Remote Magnetic Irrigated Tip. Background: Remote 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. Methods: A 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. Results: Age averaged 65.1 ± 10.7 years and 64.1% male. One- and 3-year endpoints of death, HF