BACKGROUND: The benefits of the magnetic navigation system (MNS) for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remain unclear, and a comparison of the MNS assisted approach to the conventional approach for PCI, when used in daily practice, is little studied. This study aimed to investigate the benefits of an MNS assisted technique as compared to the conventional technique for PCI. METHODS: Forty-eight consecutive patients scheduled for PCI were recruited between December 2009 and April 2010. MNS assisted PCIs were performed on 54 target vessels. Another 45 patients with 54 target vessels undergoing conventional PCIs were selected from a historical population of patients to match the MNS group according to the coronary lesion type (ACC/AHA classification). Emergency PCIs and chronic total occlusions were excluded from both groups. Analyses were performed using Stata 9.2 statistical software. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the baseline characteristics of the MNS group and the control group. The success rates were 100.0% for the MNS assisted PCI and 98.1% for the conventional PCI, which did not reach a significant difference (P = 1.000); there were also no significant differences in terms of guide wire crossing time ((51.7 ± 30.5) seconds vs. (57.5 ± 49.4) seconds, P = 0.448), operation time ((28.4 ± 15.9) minutes vs. (28.0 ± 24.7) minutes, P = 0.935), X-ray exposure ((458.1 ± 350.1) µGym(2) vs. (558.7 ± 451.7) µGym(2), P = 0.197; and (94.2 ± 80.9) mGy vs. (96.2 ± 77.3) mGy, P = 0.895) or contrast usage ((7.3 ± 4.0) ml vs. (6.1 ± 3.7) ml, P = 0.121) between the two groups. However, a trend toward shorter guide wire crossing time and less X-ray exposure were observed for the magnetic group. CONCLUSION: In daily practice, MNS assisted PCI resulted in a similar procedural success rate, operation time, and contrast usage, with a trend toward shorter guide wire crossing time and less X-ray exposure when compared to the conventional PCI.
BACKGROUND: The benefits of the magnetic navigation system (MNS) for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remain unclear, and a comparison of the MNS assisted approach to the conventional approach for PCI, when used in daily practice, is little studied. This study aimed to investigate the benefits of an MNS assisted technique as compared to the conventional technique for PCI. METHODS: Forty-eight consecutive patients scheduled for PCI were recruited between December 2009 and April 2010. MNS assisted PCIs were performed on 54 target vessels. Another 45 patients with 54 target vessels undergoing conventional PCIs were selected from a historical population of patients to match the MNS group according to the coronary lesion type (ACC/AHA classification). Emergency PCIs and chronic total occlusions were excluded from both groups. Analyses were performed using Stata 9.2 statistical software. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the baseline characteristics of the MNS group and the control group. The success rates were 100.0% for the MNS assisted PCI and 98.1% for the conventional PCI, which did not reach a significant difference (P = 1.000); there were also no significant differences in terms of guide wire crossing time ((51.7 ± 30.5) seconds vs. (57.5 ± 49.4) seconds, P = 0.448), operation time ((28.4 ± 15.9) minutes vs. (28.0 ± 24.7) minutes, P = 0.935), X-ray exposure ((458.1 ± 350.1) µGym(2) vs. (558.7 ± 451.7) µGym(2), P = 0.197; and (94.2 ± 80.9) mGy vs. (96.2 ± 77.3) mGy, P = 0.895) or contrast usage ((7.3 ± 4.0) ml vs. (6.1 ± 3.7) ml, P = 0.121) between the two groups. However, a trend toward shorter guide wire crossing time and less X-ray exposure were observed for the magnetic group. CONCLUSION: In daily practice, MNS assisted PCI resulted in a similar procedural success rate, operation time, and contrast usage, with a trend toward shorter guide wire crossing time and less X-ray exposure when compared to the conventional PCI.