Primary percutaneous coronary intervention by magnetic navigation compared with conventional wire technique

MS (Mark) Patterson, MT Dirksen, AJ IJsselmuiden, G Amoroso, T Slagboom, GJ (GertJan) Laarman, Carl Schultz, Ron van Domburg, PWJC (Patrick) Serruys, F Kiemeneij

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

10 Citations (Scopus)


Aims Comparison of magnetic guidewire navigation in percutaneous coronary intervention (MPCI) vs. conventional percutaneous coronary intervention (CPCI) for the treatment of acute myocardial infarction. Methods and results We compared 65 sequential patients (mean age 61 +/- 15 years) undergoing primary MPCI with those of 405 patients undergoing CPCI (mean age 61 +/- 13 years). The major endpoint was contrast media use. Technical success and procedural outcomes were evaluated. Clinical demographics and angiographic characteristics of the two groups were similar, except for fewer patients with previous coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and hypertension in the CPCI group and fewer patients with diabetes in the MPCI group. The technical success rate was high in both the MPCI and CPCI groups (95.4 vs. 98%). There was significantly less contrast media usage in the MPCI compared with the CPCI group, median reduction of contrast media of 30 mL with an OR = 0.41 (0.21-0.81). Fluoroscopy times were significantly reduced for MPCI compared with CPCI, median reduction of 7.2 min with an OR = 0.42 (0.20-0.79). Conclusion This comparison indicates the feasibility and non-inferiority of magnetic navigation in performing primary PCI and suggests the possibility of reductions in contrast media use and fluoroscopy time compared with CPCI.
Original languageUndefined/Unknown
Pages (from-to)1472-1478
Number of pages7
JournalEuropean Heart Journal
Issue number12
Publication statusPublished - 2011

Research programs

  • EMC COEUR-09

Cite this