['We aimed to evaluate the safety and long-term efficacy of the magnetic navigation system (MNS) in a large number of patients. The MNS has the potential for improving safety and efficacy based on atraumatic catheter design and superior navigation capabilities.', 'In this study, 610 consecutive patients underwent ablation. Patients were divided into two age- and sex-matched groups. Ablations were performed either using MNS (group MNS, 292) or conventional manual ablation [group manual navigation (MAN), 318]. The following parameters were analysed: acute success rate, fluoroscopy time, procedure time, complications [major: pericardial tamponade, permanent atrioventricular (AV) block, major bleeding, and death; minor: minor bleeding and temporary AV block]. Recurrence rate was assessed during follow-up (15±9.5 months). Subgroup analysis was performed for the following groups: atrial fibrillation, isthmus dependent and atypical atrial flutter, atrial tachycardia, AV nodal re-entrant tachycardia, circus movement tachycardia, and ventricular tachycardia (VT). Magnetic navigation system was associated with less major complications (0.34 vs. 3.2%, P=0.01). The total numbers of complications were lower in group MNS (4.5 vs. 10%, P=0.005). Magnetic navigation system was equally effective as MAN in acute success rate for overall groups (92 vs. 94%, P=ns). Magnetic navigation system was more successful for VTs (93 vs. 72%, P<0.05). Less fluoroscopy was used in group MNS (30±20 vs. 35±25 min, P<0.01). There were no differences in procedure times and recurrence rates for the overall groups (168±67 vs. 159±75 min, P=ns; 14 vs. 11%, P=ns; respectively).'] Does the magnetic navigation system allow safety and high efficacy for ablation of arrhythmias?