It has been reported by the group of Haissaguerre that antral PVI is a curative treatment for paroxysmal AF1,2,10. More recent data compared PVI with medical treatment in paroxysmal AF and found a lower rate of AF recurrence after PVI compared to antiarrhythmia treatment after 2 years of follow up11. However, as the authors of the RAAFT-2 trial conclude, recurrence rates after both types of treatment are high11. Therefore, improvement of the technique is necessary.
It has been discussed before, that manual catheter control may result in inaccurate catheter movements5,7. It therefore is of clinical interest, if ablation with the use of a robotic arm is feasible and effective. On the other hand, increased stability could lead to severe complications such as cardiac wall perforation and injury of adjacent structures. In a previously published study, is was shown that left atrial mapping and PVI with the RCS is feasible and effective. No major complication was observed7, confirming previously published results on the safety of robotic ablation12,13. Operator fluoroscopy exposure is significantly lower without decrease of procedural success rates7.
The first critical step is the trans-septal puncture. There is a significant risk of atrial wall perforation and cardiac tamponade as well as injury to the aorta. Puncture should be performed in the fossa ovalis under fluoroscopic guidance and with a CS catheter as landmark to minimize the risk. The next critical step is the 3-D-reconstruction. Accuracy of the 3-D-image depends on patient anatomy, catheter stability and patient immobilisation. Therefore, sufficient patient sedation is crucial to avoid movement artefacts and create a reliable image. The third critical step is the application of the ablation lesions. Optima catheter stability and wall contact should be achieved.
One of the major advantages of the RCS (compared to other robotic systems) is that it is possible to switch to manual ablation during the procedure and back to robotic ablation. This can be very helpful in case of anatomical abnormalities or difficult structures (e.g., a common ostium of left PVs). The operator may perform ablation manually in difficult areas and use the RCS for the remaining ablation sites. Therefore, switching from robotic to manual ablation could be a solution for difficult situations during the procedure.
As mentioned before, measurement of contact force could add valuable information for the operator7. In the case presented here, contact force and catheter tissue contact with the use of the mapping system are assessed. Contact force mapping could further increase efficacy and safety of the procedure14.
It is important to note, that despite the use of RCS certain steps of the procedure still have to be carried out manually, such as trans-septal puncture and positioning of the circular mapping catheter inside the pulmonary veins. Yet, those steps generally can be carried out quickly and do not necessitate long fluoroscopy time.
Furthermore, tactile feedback is lacking during robotic catheter ablation. The physician has to rely on fluoroscopy, 3-D reconstruction and contact force measurement. Studies on the use of contact force measurement during AF ablation have shown that tactile feedback is of very limited value for the estimation of contact force15. Therefore, contact force measurement is considered superior to tactile feedback in terms of efficacy. However, the value of tactile feedback for safety endpoints (e.g., the prevention of atrial wall perforation) is less clear, since incidence of perforation is much lower than incidence of AF recurrence due to PV reconnection. Theoretically, measurement of contact force should also prevent excessively high force and wall perforation. One previous study found a relatively high incidence of esophageal lesions after robotic AF ablation16. Even though a different robotic system was used and no contact force was measured the results of the study by Tilz et al. may at least in part apply to the RCS used in our protocol. Large randomized prospective trials are missing, but numerous studies on initial experience with the RCS support the view that robotic ablation with the RCS is safe7-9.
We here present a protocol for robotic ablation of AF. In contrast to previous studies we use a catheter with contact force measurement to increase safety and efficacy of the procedure. Operator fluoroscopy exposure can significantly be reduced. Catheter stability is most likely increased and outcomes are comparable to manual ablation. Additionally, switching between manual of robotic ablation is easy, which is a unique aspect of the RCS. In conclusion, ablation with the use of the RCS may in the future optimize PVI procedures, reduce operator radiation exposure and increase accuracy of the technique. Therefore, robotic ablation with the RCS is a promising approach in the treatment of AF.