Assessment of intracardiac magnetic navigation system Niobe®, systematic review
Introduction and objective: Current methods of ablation involving manual navigation systems and cardiac ablation have some limitations. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of intracardiac magnetic navigation systems. Methods: Systematic review in MedLine, Embase, Cochrane L...
| Autor Principal: | Ruiz-Aragón, Jesús; Universidad de Sevilla |
|---|---|
| Otros Autores: | Molina-Linde, Juan Máximo; Universidad de Granada, Márquez-Pelaéz, Sergio; Universidad de Granada, Rodríguez-López, Rocío; Agencia de Evaluación de Tecnología Sanitaria de Andalucía (AETSA) |
| Formato: | info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
| Idioma: | spa |
| Publicado: |
Pontificia Universidad Javeriana
2010
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: |
http://revistas.javeriana.edu.co/index.php/vnimedica/article/view/16075 |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: |
Introduction and objective: Current methods of ablation involving manual navigation systems and cardiac ablation have some limitations. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of intracardiac magnetic navigation systems. Methods: Systematic review in MedLine, Embase, Cochrane Library, Center for Review and Dissemination, ECRI, Hayes and HTA databases was performed. The used Mesh terms were: “electrophisiologic techniques”, “magnetic”, “stereotaxic techniques”, “heart catheterization”, and “catheter ablation”. Inclusion criteria were studies whose populations were adults with cardiac lesions. The intervention was intracardiac magnetic navigation system Niobe ® versus manual cardiac navigation techniques and manual ablation. The outcomes were total procedure time, fluoroscopy time, time of catheter positioning, mapping and ablation time. Quality of studies was assessed by CASPe and STROBE.Results: 467 references were found and 14 were included: two clinical trials of moderate quality and 10 observational studies with low-moderate quality. The two trials had a total time of procedure by magnetic navigation systems equal or higher than conventional time (151 and 113 Vs. 151 and 77.2 minutes), whereas fluoroscopy times were lower (17.8 and 10.6 Vs. 27.1 and 15.0 minutes). Observational studies showed the total time intervention that ranged between 59 and 243 minutes for magnetic systems compared to 57-332 minutes using conventional techniques. All papers showed magnetic techniques are safe, with no serious adverse effects.Conclusions: We could conclude that no evidence with high quality has been located to claim that intracardiac magnetic navigation systems clearly improve conventional systems. |
|---|