['Robotic remote catheter ablation potentially provides improved catheter-tip stability, which should improve the efficiency of radiofrequency energy delivery. Percentage reduction in electrogram peak-to-peak voltage has been used as a measure of effectiveness of ablation. We tested the hypothesis that improved catheter-tip stability of robotic ablation can diminish signals to a greater degree than manual ablation.', 'In vivo NavX maps of 7 pig atria were constructed. Separate lines of ablation were performed robotically and manually, recording pre- and postablation peak-to-peak voltages at 10, 20, 30, and 60 seconds and calculating signal amplitude reduction. Catheter ablation settings were constant (25W, 50 degrees , 17 mL/min, 20-30 g catheter tip pressure). The pigs were sacrificed and ablation lesions correlated with NavX maps.', 'Robotic ablation reduced signal amplitude to a greater degree than manual ablation (49 +/- 2.6% vs 29 +/- 4.5% signal reduction after 1 minute [P = 0.0002]). The mean energy delivered (223 +/- 184 J vs 231 +/- 190 J, P = 0.42), power (19 +/- 3.5 W vs 19 +/- 4 W, P = 0.84), and duration of ablation (15 +/- 9 seconds vs 15 +/- 9 seconds, P = 0.89) was the same for manual and robotic. The mean peak catheter-tip temperature was higher for robotic (45 +/- 5 degrees C vs 42 +/- 3 degrees C [P < 0.0001]). The incidence of >50% signal reduction was greater for robotic (37%) than manual (21%) ablation (P = 0.0001).'] Does robotically assisted ablation produce more rapid and greater signal attenuation than manual ablation?