Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 2, 2026
Remote Magnetic Navigation for Accurate, Real-time Catheter Positioning and Ablation in Cardiac Electrophysiology Procedures
Published on: April 21, 2013
Does a patent foramen ovale matter when using a remote-controlled magnetic system for pulmonary vein isolation?
Alexie Gate-Martinet1, Antoine Da Costa1, Cécile Romeyer-Bouchard1
1Division of Cardiology, Jean-Monnet University, Saint-Étienne, France.
Background:
Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) takes longer when using a patent foramen ovale (PFO) compared with a transseptal puncture in paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF) with manual catheter ablation. To our knowledge, no data exist concerning the impact of a PFO on AF ablation procedure variables when using a remote magnetic navigation (RMN) system.
Aim:
To assess the impact of a PFO when using an RMN system in patients requiring AF ablation.
Methods:
Between December 2011 and December 2012, catheter ablation was performed remotely using the CARTO(®) 3 system in 167 consecutive patients who underwent PVI for symptomatic drug-refractory AF. The radiofrequency generator was set to a fixed power ≤ 35 W. The primary endpoint was wide-area circumferential PVI confirmed by spiral catheter recording during ablation for all patients and including additional lesion lines (left atrial roof) or complex fractionated atrial electrograms for persistent AF. Secondary endpoints included procedural data.
Results:
Mean age 58±10 years; 18% women; 107 (64%) patients with symptomatic paroxysmal AF; 60 (36%) with persistent AF; CHA2DS2-VASc score 1.2 ± 1. The PFO presence was evidenced in 49/167 (29.3%) patients during the procedure but in only 26/167 (16%) by transoesophageal echocardiography. Median procedure time 2.5 ± 1 hours; median total X-ray exposure time 14 ± 7 minutes; transseptal puncture and catheter positioning time 7.5 ± 5 minutes; left atrium electroanatomical reconstruction time 3 ± 2.3 minutes; catheter ablation time 3 ± 3 minutes. No procedure time or X-ray exposure differences were observed between patients with or without a PFO during magnetic navigation catheter ablation. X-ray exposure time was significantly reduced using a PFO compared with double transseptal puncture access.
Conclusions:
A PFO does not affect magnetic navigation during AF ablation; procedure times and X-ray exposure were similar. Septal catheter probing is mandatory to limit X-ray exposure and prevent potential complications.
