PURPOSE: The present study was undertaken to determine whether hydrophilic-coated guide wires differed significantly according to physician-rated performance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this single-blinded, randomized prospective trial, three standard-shaft, 3-cm, angled-tip hydrophilic-coated guide wires were compared: the ZIPwire, HiWire, and Glidewire. Physicians rated performance characteristics on a five-point scale. RESULTS: The Glidewire had significantly greater physician-rated tip radiopacity (3.3 +/- 0.5 vs. 3.0 +/- 0.6; P = .04), wire radiopacity (3.3 +/- 0.5 vs. 3.0 +/- 0.6; P = .04), and "lubricity" (3.3 +/- 0.6 vs. 2.6 +/- 1.0; P < .01) compared with the ZIPwire. The HiWire and Glidewire did not differ significantly in any of these characteristics. Compared with the ZIPwire (2.4 +/- 1.2), the HiWire (3.0 +/- 0.7; P = .02) and Glidewire (3.2 +/- 0.6; P < .01) had significantly higher-rated lubricity retention. There were no differences in torque response, ability to navigate tortuous vessels, or tip shape retention among the three devices. The Glidewire received a significantly higher rating for overall balance of properties (3.3 +/- 0.6) compared with the HiWire (3.0 +/- 0.7; P = .01) and ZIPwire (2.7 +/- 0.8; P < .01). Overall, operators stated that the Glidewire met their expectations in 95.0% of cases compared with 75.0% for the HiWire (P < .01) and 62.5% for the ZIPwire (P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: In addition to the highest-rated overall balance of properties, the Glidewire had significantly higher-rated lubricity and radiopacity characteristics compared with the ZIPwire.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: The present study was undertaken to determine whether hydrophilic-coated guide wires differed significantly according to physician-rated performance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this single-blinded, randomized prospective trial, three standard-shaft, 3-cm, angled-tip hydrophilic-coated guide wires were compared: the ZIPwire, HiWire, and Glidewire. Physicians rated performance characteristics on a five-point scale. RESULTS: The Glidewire had significantly greater physician-rated tip radiopacity (3.3 +/- 0.5 vs. 3.0 +/- 0.6; P = .04), wire radiopacity (3.3 +/- 0.5 vs. 3.0 +/- 0.6; P = .04), and "lubricity" (3.3 +/- 0.6 vs. 2.6 +/- 1.0; P < .01) compared with the ZIPwire. The HiWire and Glidewire did not differ significantly in any of these characteristics. Compared with the ZIPwire (2.4 +/- 1.2), the HiWire (3.0 +/- 0.7; P = .02) and Glidewire (3.2 +/- 0.6; P < .01) had significantly higher-rated lubricity retention. There were no differences in torque response, ability to navigate tortuous vessels, or tip shape retention among the three devices. The Glidewire received a significantly higher rating for overall balance of properties (3.3 +/- 0.6) compared with the HiWire (3.0 +/- 0.7; P = .01) and ZIPwire (2.7 +/- 0.8; P < .01). Overall, operators stated that the Glidewire met their expectations in 95.0% of cases compared with 75.0% for the HiWire (P < .01) and 62.5% for the ZIPwire (P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: In addition to the highest-rated overall balance of properties, the Glidewire had significantly higher-rated lubricity and radiopacity characteristics compared with the ZIPwire.
Authors: Kyosoo Hwang; Sang Woo Park; Jin Ho Hwang; Yong Wonn Kwon; Jeeyoung Min; Hyemin Jang; Il Soo Chang; Kun Woo Kim Journal: Ann Surg Treat Res Date: 2022-02-04 Impact factor: 1.859