A randomized comparison of the magnetic navigation system versus conventional percutaneous coronary intervention

Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions

Volumn 72, Issue 6, 2008, Pages 761-770

  Ramcharitar, Steve ^a   van Geuns, Robert Jan ^a   Patterson, Mark ^a   van der Giessen, Willem J ^a   van ver Ent, Martin ^a   van Domburg, Ron T ^a   Serruys, Patrick W ^a  

^a ERASMUS MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Contrast usage; Coronary disease; Guidewires; Three dimensional reconstruction

Indexed keywords

CONTRAST MEDIUM; DIAGNOSTIC AGENT;

ADULT; ARTICLE; BLOOD VESSEL CALCIFICATION; BLOOD VESSEL DIAMETER; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DISEASE CLASSIFICATION; FEMALE; FLUOROSCOPY; GUIDE WIRE; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAGNETIC NAVIGATION SYSTEM; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PERCUTANEOUS CORONARY INTERVENTION; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SINGLE BLIND PROCEDURE; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE; TECHNOLOGY; THREE DIMENSIONAL IMAGING; TREATMENT RESPONSE; AGED; ANGIOCARDIOGRAPHY; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; COMPUTER INTERFACE; CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE; HOSPITALIZATION; INSTRUMENTATION; MAGNETISM; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; RADIOGRAPHY; TIME; TRANSLUMINAL CORONARY ANGIOPLASTY; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ANGIOPLASTY, TRANSLUMINAL, PERCUTANEOUS CORONARY; CONTRAST MEDIA; CORONARY ANGIOGRAPHY; CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE; FEMALE; FLUOROSCOPY; HUMANS; IMAGING, THREE-DIMENSIONAL; MAGNETICS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; SINGLE-BLIND METHOD; TIME FACTORS; TREATMENT OUTCOME; USER-COMPUTER INTERFACE;

EID: 58849140554     PISSN: 15221946     EISSN: 1522726X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/ccd.21674     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Ramcharitar S, Patterson MS, van Geuns RJ, van Meighem C, Serruys PW. Technology insight: Magnetic navigation in coronary interventions. Nat Clin Pract Cardiovasc Med 2008;5:148-156.
2. Patterson MS, Schotten J, van Mieghem C, Kiemeneij F, Serruys PW. Magnetic navigation in percutaneous coronary intervention. J Interv Cardiol 2006;19:558-565.
3. Pappone C, Vicedomini G, Manguso F, Gugliotta F, Mazzone P, Gulletta S, Sora N, Sala S, Marzi A, Augello G, et al. Robotic magnetic navigation for atrial fibrillation ablation. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006;47:1390-1400.
4. Ramcharitar S, Patterson MS, van Geuns RJ, Serruys PW. Magnetic navigation system used successfully to cross a crushed stent in a bifurcation that failed with conventional wires. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2007;69:852-855.
5. Ramcharitar S, Patterson MS, van Geuns RJ, van der Ent M, Sianos G, Welten GM, van Domburg RT, Serruys PW. A randomised controlled study comparing conventional and magnetic guidewires in a two-dimensional branching tortuous phantom simulating angulated coronary vessels. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2007;70:662-668.
6. Tsuchida K, Garcia-Garcia HM, van der Giessen WJ, McFadden EP, van der Ent M, Sianos G, Meulenbrug H, Ong AT, Serruys PW. Guidewire navigation in coronary artery stenoses using a novel magnetic navigation system: First clinical experience. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2006;67:356-363.
7. Cox J, Naylor CD. The Canadian Cardiovascular Society grading scale for angina pectoris: Is it time for refinements? Ann Intern Med 1992;117:677-683.
8. Braunwald E. Unstable angina. A classification. Circulation 1989;80:410-414.
9. Ellis SG, Vandormael MG, Cowley MJ, DiSciascio G, Deligonul U, Topol EJ, Bulle TM. Coronary morphologic and clinical determinants of procedural outcome with angioplasty for multi-vessel coronary disease. Implications for patient selection. Multi-vessel Angioplasty Prognosis Study Group. Circulation 1990;82: 1193-1202.
10. Patterson S, Hoeks S, Tanimoto S, Van Mieghem C, Ramcharitar S, Van Domburg R, Serruys PW. A simple score for predicting prolonged crossing times to select patients who would benefit from a magnetic percutaneous coronary intervention. Eur Heart J 2007;28 (Abstract Supplement P4762):847-848.
11. Patterson MS, Hoeks SE, Rijkenberg S, Ramcharitar S, van Geuns RJ, Tanimoto S, van Domburg RT, Serruys PW. Integration of 3D reconstruction in the SELection Criteria for Excessive Crossing Times for Magnetically Supported Percutaneous coronary intervention SELECT-MP. Eurointervention, in press.
12. Raizner AE. Magnetic navigation: A pivotal technology. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2007;69:856.
13. Kiemeneij F, Patterson MS, Amoroso G, Laarman G, Slagboom T. Use of the Stereotaxis Niobe magnetic navigation system for percutaneous coronary intervention: Results from 350 consecutive patients. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2008;71:510-516.
14. Ramcharitar S, Pugliese F, van Geuns RJ, de Feyter P, Guiliguian D, Serruys PW. Navigant® software facilitates Magnetically Assisted Percutaneous Interventions by directly co-integrating the Multi-Slice Computer Tomography Scan. Eurointervention 2008 (In press).
15. Seshadri N, Whitlow PL, Acharya N, Houghtaling P, Blackstone EH, Ellis SG. Emergency coronary artery bypass surgery in the contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention era. Circulation 2002;106:2346-2350.
16. Ryan TJ, Faxon DP, Gunnar RM, Kennedy JW, King SB III, Loop FD, Peterson KL, Reeves TJ, Williams DO, Winters WL, Jr. and others. Guidelines for percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Assessment of Diagnostic and Therapeutic Cardiovascular Procedures (Subcommittee on Percutaneous Transluminal Coronary Angioplasty). Circulation 1988;78(2):486-502.
17. Singh M, Rihal CS, Lennon RJ, Garratt KN, Holmes DR Jr. Comparison of Mayo Clinic risk score and American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association lesion classification in the prediction of adverse cardiovascular outcome following percutaneous coronary interventions. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004;44: 357-361.
18. Valgimigli M, Serruys PW, Tsuchida K, Vaina S, Morel MA, van den Brand MJ, Colombo A, Morice MC, Dawkins K, de Bruyne B, et al. Cyphering the complexity of coronary artery disease using the syntax score to predict clinical outcome in patients with three-vessel lumen obstruction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Am J Cardiol 2007;99:1072-1081.
19. Herrman JP, Azar A, Umans VA, Boersma E, von Es GA, Serruys PW. Inter- and intra-observer variability in the qualitative categorization of coronary angiograms. Int J Card Imaging 1996;12:21-30.
20. Schneider MA, Hoch FV, Neuser H, Brunn J, Koller ML, Gietzen F, Schamberger R, Kerber S, Schumacher B. Magnetic-guided percutaneous coronary intervention enabled by two-dimensional guidewire steering and three-dimensional virtual angioscopy: Initial experiences in daily clinical practice. J Interv Cardiol 2008;21:158-166.
21. Patterson MS, Ramcharitar S, Serruys PW. Magnetically supported PCI: Success after failed surgery and conventional PCI. Cath Lab Dig 2007;15:1-14.
22. Gollapudi RR, Valencia R, Lee SS, Wong GB, Teirstein PS, Price MJ. Utility of three-dimensional reconstruction of coronary angiography to guide percutaneous coronary intervention. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2007;69:479-482.
23. Green NE, Chen SY, Hansgen AR, Messenger JC, Groves BM, Carroll JD. Angiographic views used for percutaneous coronary interventions: A three-dimensional analysis of physician-determined vs. computer-generated views. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2005;64:451-459.
24. Mediguide. MPS First in Human! MediGuide started its clinical trials in Regensburg University Hospital in Germany. http://www.mediguide.co.il/ news/news.asp?newID543&newsCatID52.
25. Beyar R, Gruberg L, Deleanu D, Roguin A, Almagor Y, Cohen S, Kumar G, Wenderow T. Remote-control percutaneous coronary interventions: Concept, validation, and first-in-humans pilot clinical trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006;47:296-300.