Imperial College London


Faculty of MedicineNational Heart & Lung Institute

Honorary Clinical Senior Lecturer



+44 (0)20 3313 1664m.koa-wing05




Cardiac Catheter Laboratory (EP)Hammersmith HospitalHammersmith Campus






BibTex format

author = {Luther, V and Jamil-Copley, S and Koa-Wing, M and Shun-Shin, M and Hayat, S and Linton, NW and Lim, PB and Whinnett, Z and Wright, IJ and Lefroy, D and Peters, NS and Davies, DW and Kanagaratnam, P},
doi = {10.1007/s10840-015-9992-5},
journal = {Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology},
pages = {175--185},
title = {Non-randomised comparison of acute and long-term outcomes of robotic versus manual ventricular tachycardia ablation in a single centre ischemic cohort.},
url = {},
volume = {43},
year = {2015}

RIS format (EndNote, RefMan)

AB - INTRODUCTION: Robotically guided radiofrequency (RF) ablation offers greater catheter stability that may improve lesion depth. We performed a non-randomised comparison of patients undergoing ventricular tachycardia (VT) ablation either manually or robotically using the Hansen Sensei system for recurrent implantable defibrillator (ICD) therapy. METHODS: Patients with infarct-related scar underwent VT ablation using the Hansen system to assess feasibility compared with patients undergoing manual VT ablation during a similar time period. Power delivery during robotic ablation was restricted to 30 W at 60 s. VT inducibility was checked at the end of the procedure. Pre-ablation ICD therapy burdens over 6 months were compared with post-ablation therapy averaged to a 6-month period. RESULTS: Twelve consecutive patients who underwent robotic VT ablation were compared to 12 consecutive patients undergoing a manual ablation. Patient demographics and comorbidities were similar in the two groups. A higher proportion of robotic cases were urgent (9/12 (75 %)) vs. manual (4/12 (33 %)) (p = 0.1). Post-ablation VT stimulation did not induce clinical VT in 11/12 (92 %) in each group. There were no peri-procedural complications related to ablation delivery. Patients were followed up for approximately 2 years. Averaged over 6 months, robotic ICD therapy burdens fell from 32 (5-400) events to 2.5 (0-11) (p = 0.015). Therapy burden fell from 14 (10-25) to 1 (0-5) (p = 0.023) in the manual group. There was no difference in long-term outcome (p = 0.60) and mortality (4/12 (33 %), p = 1.0). CONCLUSION: Robotically guided VT ablation is both feasible and safe when compared to manual ablation with good acute and long-term outcomes.
AU - Luther,V
AU - Jamil-Copley,S
AU - Koa-Wing,M
AU - Shun-Shin,M
AU - Hayat,S
AU - Linton,NW
AU - Lim,PB
AU - Whinnett,Z
AU - Wright,IJ
AU - Lefroy,D
AU - Peters,NS
AU - Davies,DW
AU - Kanagaratnam,P
DO - 10.1007/s10840-015-9992-5
EP - 185
PY - 2015///
SN - 1572-8595
SP - 175
TI - Non-randomised comparison of acute and long-term outcomes of robotic versus manual ventricular tachycardia ablation in a single centre ischemic cohort.
T2 - Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology
UR -
UR -
VL - 43
ER -