A Comparison of Remote Magnetic Irrigated Tip Ablation versus Manual Catheter Irrigated Tip Catheter Ablation With and Without Force Sensing Feedback.
about
Robotic magnetic navigation for ablation of human arrhythmias2017 HRS/EHRA/ECAS/APHRS/SOLAECE expert consensus statement on catheter and surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation: Executive summary.2017 HRS/EHRA/ECAS/APHRS/SOLAECE expert consensus statement on catheter and surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation: executive summary.2017 HRS/EHRA/ECAS/APHRS/SOLAECE expert consensus statement on catheter and surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation.2017 HRS/EHRA/ECAS/APHRS/SOLAECE expert consensus statement on catheter and surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation: Executive summary.2017 HRS/EHRA/ECAS/APHRS/SOLAECE expert consensus statement on catheter and surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation.Remote magnetic navigation for ventricular ablation: did the machine win this round?Radiofrequency catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation: Electrical modification suggesting transmurality is faster achieved with remote magnetic catheter in comparison with contact force use.Long-term outcomes of the current remote magnetic catheter navigation technique for ablation of atrial fibrillation.Excessive contact force can overcome irrigated tip catheter benefits during atrial fibrillation ablation.Significant reduction in procedure duration in remote magnetic-guided catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation using the third-generation magnetic navigation system.2012 HRS/EHRA/ECAS expert consensus statement on catheter and surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation: recommendations for patient selection, procedural techniques, patient management and follow-up, definitions, endpoints, and research trial design
P2860
Q28075507-4B6CD425-C970-4B01-99F1-E5F3A9663FD3Q42172443-744E83DE-CF27-456A-B0A6-AAAC10D13F76Q42373398-18C74FCD-2A5E-4AE9-BD87-AA776D2C7CB7Q45059153-57C87948-7B03-49A3-B789-12AB7C96CA2FQ45069696-31F31CA1-1135-4B42-98D8-9CD25ED15EA0Q46658026-C2867962-CD5A-4386-BAC1-55FECEBC13ADQ47268640-E17445D8-9EC8-43FA-B200-AE1B46665113Q47305911-6A88FCE9-82A9-48C2-A6C7-7B6C34DCFAFDQ47622086-1A4087B2-34F6-403D-8E64-FF56C18A8205Q49684582-F5232028-C5A7-4090-A2A5-D0FEC3BB694BQ50591989-B27A0CB8-C3C4-4FAE-A6B1-55E2F4F0F045Q55263071-7DE29040-CD40-400E-9FC4-D4CC962F3D85
P2860
A Comparison of Remote Magnetic Irrigated Tip Ablation versus Manual Catheter Irrigated Tip Catheter Ablation With and Without Force Sensing Feedback.
description
2016 nî lūn-bûn
@nan
2016年の論文
@ja
2016年学术文章
@wuu
2016年学术文章
@zh
2016年学术文章
@zh-cn
2016年学术文章
@zh-hans
2016年学术文章
@zh-my
2016年学术文章
@zh-sg
2016年學術文章
@yue
2016年學術文章
@zh-hant
name
A Comparison of Remote Magneti ...... ithout Force Sensing Feedback.
@en
A Comparison of Remote Magneti ...... ithout Force Sensing Feedback.
@nl
type
label
A Comparison of Remote Magneti ...... ithout Force Sensing Feedback.
@en
A Comparison of Remote Magneti ...... ithout Force Sensing Feedback.
@nl
prefLabel
A Comparison of Remote Magneti ...... ithout Force Sensing Feedback.
@en
A Comparison of Remote Magneti ...... ithout Force Sensing Feedback.
@nl
P2093
P2860
P356
P1476
A Comparison of Remote Magneti ...... ithout Force Sensing Feedback.
@en
P2093
Brian G Crandall
Charles Mallender
Heidi T May
J Peter Weiss
Jeffrey S Osborn
John D Day
Michael J Cutler
T Jared Bunch
Tami L Bair
P2860
P304
P356
10.1111/JCE.12901
P478
27 Suppl 1
P577
2016-03-01T00:00:00Z