Magnetic Navigation for Contrast and Radiation Reduction
NCT ID: NCT01276808
Last Updated: 2014-08-20
Study Results
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
UNKNOWN
NA
300 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2011-10-31
2018-04-30
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Objective: To compare the use of contrast and irradiation used in magnetically navigated PCI (MPCI) with conventional guidewire PCI (CPCI) in patients with complex anatomy (as defined by a clinical prediction rule).
Study design: Prospective randomised controlled, single-blind trial Study population: Healthy human volunteers aged 18 to 80 years of age Intervention (if applicable): One group has the placement of the angioplasty wire with magnetic navigation and the other has the angioplasty wire placed by conventional technique. All other interventions will be performed as per routine practice.
Main study parameters/endpoints:
Primary endpoint The primary endpoint is the amount of contrast used.
Secondary endpoints
1. Contrast needed to cross a lesion
2. procedural time
3. radiation exposure
4. Clinical complications at 1 and 12 months
5. procedural success
Nature and extent of the burden and risks associated with participation, benefit and group relatedness:
The index procedure is performed as per normal routine and includes history and examination. A blood test will be taken once vascular access has been obtained. After the procedure a questionnaire will be filled in. The patient will have a blood test 2 to 3 days after the procedure, telephone follow-up will occur at 1 and 6 months and a further outpatient visit with ECG will be planned for a year after the index procedure. No additional significant physical or psychological discomfort is expected with participation in the study.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Prospective Randomized Trial On Radiation Dose Estimates Of CT Angiography In Patients Applying Iterative Image Reconstruction Techniques - The PROTECTION V Study -
NCT01453712
68Ga-NODAGA-RGD PET in Patients With an Occluded Coronary Artery
NCT04871217
Application of a New X-ray Protective Device in Coronary Interventional Therapy
NCT05088291
Comparison of Cardiac Imaging Techniques for Diagnosing Coronary Artery Disease
NCT01521468
Non-Contrast Magnetic Resonance Angiography Assessment of Patients Referred for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation
NCT02007967
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
Magnetic navigation gives 3 dimensional (3D) directional control over the guide-wire tip during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) procedures.
Magnetic navigation has been shown to be feasible and effective (1-3), case reports suggest that it enables the performance of procedures that could not be successfully finished conventionally (4-6), and that the use of the system may lead to reductions in contrast use and procedure time (7-11) that can be expected to result in better patient outcomes, and an economical advantage (less consumables per procedure, more procedures per session). There are only a few centers that perform magnetic navigation for percutaneous coronary intervention The OLVG has performed the most procedures of any of these centers and has included all the patients in a registry.
The registry at the OLVG suggests that different subgroups derive different benefit.
Distal lesions (10) defined as lesions more distal than the first 2 coronary segments from the aorta (thus RCA segment, mid LAD or distal Cx).
Technical success did not differ significantly between magnetic and conventional PCI (88.5 vs 96.2%; p=0.14). Significantly shorter procedural and fluoroscopy time were observed for magnetic compared to conventional PCI (29.9±17.1 vs 42.9±21.1 min, p\<0.001; 8.2±7.7 vs 16.7±22.4 min, p=0.01 respectively). More contrast was used in de conventional PCI group (54 ml/patient; P=0.02). These advantages resulted in a mean saving of 1652 euro per patient (P\<0.0001).
Primary PCI (11) The technical success rate was high in both the MPCI and CPCI groups (95.4% vs 98%; P = NS). There was significantly less contrast usage in the MPCI compared to the CPCI group (167±80/patient vs 220±87/patient; P\<0.001). Procedural times were not significantly different for MPCI compared to CPCI (30.8±16.5 min vs 33.6±15.8 min, p=0.2) while fluoroscopy times were significantly better (8.1±5.0 min vs 14.6±26.5 min, p\<0.05).
Simple lesions (8) as defined by the elective treatment of a single discrete stenosis that would require a maximum of two stents and excluding multiple lesions in the target vessel, multi-vessel PCI, bifurcation lesions, acute and chronic total occlusions, or a previous failed conventional attempt for the same target lesion.
Procedural and fluoroscopy times were not significantly different for MPCI compared to CPCI (21.0±14.5 min vs 24.7±14.0 min; 4.9±4.8 min vs 7.3±10.3 min, p=NS). There was a significant reduction in median contrast use (60 ml/patient \[41-100\] vs 100 ml/patient \[64-130\]; P=0.006).
Summary Benefit appears to increase depending on the complexity of the vessel/lesion with distal lesions showing a significant benefit in terms of contrast use, procedure time and fluoroscopy time.
Simple lesions show that procedures are not negatively influenced in terms of time, or irradiation and there may be benefit in terms of contrast use.
Acute procedures where time is at a premium (primary PCI for a heart attack) are not slowed by the use of the system.
Furthermore, the investigators have published a clinical prediction rule for selection of patients that will most benefit from this technology. (12)
The use of this system may have a number of benefits
1. Reduction in the procedure time, irradiation and contrast use in the patient
2. Better procedures with wire passage that maintains the tip coaxial in the vessel to avoid inadvertent sidebranch cannulation or more accurate bend/sidebranch entry to produce less complications
The hypothesis that MPCI is better than CPCI should be investigated by a randomized controlled trial (Magnetic navigation wire placement vs conventional wire placement).
The investigators plan to randomize patients into magnetic and conventional groups.
Endpoints:
1. Primary endpoint Contrast use
2. Secondary:
Short-term procedural Procedure Fluoroscopy Procedure time Procedure success Short term contrast nephropathy
3. Long-term MACCE at 1 month and 12 months.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
RANDOMIZED
SINGLE_GROUP
TREATMENT
SINGLE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Magnetic navigation PCI
These patients will be treated with magnetically navigated percutaneous coronary intervention
Magnetic navigation PCI
Magnetically navigated angioplasty wire technique
Conventional PCI
These patients will be treated with normal standard percutaneous coronary intervention
Conventional PCI
Conventional manual angioplasty wire percutaneous coronary intervention
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Magnetic navigation PCI
Magnetically navigated angioplasty wire technique
Conventional PCI
Conventional manual angioplasty wire percutaneous coronary intervention
Other Intervention Names
Discover alternative or legacy names that may be used to describe the listed interventions across different sources.
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* Elective presentation for PCI, This implies that the coronary anatomy is known and can be analysed according to the clinical prediction rule.(13)
* The included patients must have a calculated formula with a result equal or greater than 6.
Pct=1\*Vb+1\*(Vl=1)+2\*(Vl=2)+2\*Vc+1\*Lbb)+1\*(Ll=1)+2\*(Ll=2)
Pct - Predicted crossing time (prolonged if integer ≥ 6). Vb - Number of bends before the lesion. Each bend causes deformation of the wire resulting in friction. A greater number of bends leads to increased friction resulting in more difficultly in manipulating the wire.
Vl - End-to-end length from the ostium to the lesion. The more distal the lesion is from the ostium, then the greater the chance of encountering problematic bends that impair manipulation, and also the longer the time required to physically pass the wire. This is divided into shorter than 50 mm (=0), between 50 and 100 mm (=1) and greater then 100 mm (=2).
Vc - Vessel calcification. Calcium may increase friction as the vessel becomes more rigid and less deformable and does not conform to the wire. The frictive effect of a specific angle will be accentuated if deformation cannot occur.
Lbb - Side-branches within 10 mm. Side-branches within 10 mm of the lesion increase difficultly because, on the approach to a lesion finer control is necessary, the fixed wire-tip angle needed for bends now may have more of a predisposition for side-branches.
Ll - Lesion length. Longer lesions produce more friction on the wire. The detailed analysis of 3D reconstruction by the Paeion system has been described earlier.(12) This rule was tested on a validation group taken from a second cohort of 415 lesions. The c-statistic derived from this group was 0.82 showing good discrimination.
* Patients can be admitted from the lounge, the ward or the CCU
* Diagnostic coronary angiography films suitable for 3D reconstruction Informed consent obtained.
Exclusion Criteria
* Cardiogenic shock
* Resuscitation / intubation
* Cerebrovascular accident within 30 days
* Major bleeding within 30 days according to the TIMI definitions
* Severe hypertension (\>180/110) after medical treatment
* Relevant trauma or surgery within 6 weeks
* Active peptic ulcer within 3 months
* Hemorrhagic retinopathy
* Thrombocytopenia (\<150)
* Severe renal dysfunction (Creatinine \>140)
* Ongoing or desired use of GpIIb/IIIa blockers
* Participation in another clinical study
* Women who are pregnant or women who are breast-feeding. Inability to follow the patient (e.g. foreign or long-distance patients on holiday)
18 Years
80 Years
ALL
Yes
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
J.P.R. Herrman
MD PhD
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Mark S Patterson, PhD
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis
Amsterdam, North Holland, Netherlands
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
Central Contacts
Reach out to these primary contacts for questions about participation or study logistics.
Facility Contacts
Find local site contact details for specific facilities participating in the trial.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
WO nummer R-10.420
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.