AIMS: To assess the safety and efficacy of a novel sheathless (SH) 6.5 Fr (French) hydrophilic-coated guiding catheter (GC) compared to the standard 5 Fr GCs in transradial coronary interventions (TRI). METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients undergoing TRI with 6.5 Fr SH or 5 Fr GCs were included. Baseline characteristics and in-hospital outcomes were recorded. Primary endpoints were procedural success and presence of radial pulse at discharge. Secondary endpoints were successful GC support, in-hospital adverse events, access-site complications, procedural duration and contrast load. There were 269 patients with 146 procedures in each group. The SH GC group had more non-ST elevation MI, in-stent restenosis, high-risk and bifurcation lesions. Procedural success in both arms was 95.2%. One patient in each group (0.7%) experienced radial artery occlusion (RAO) after TRI, without clinical sequelae. One access-site haematoma and one minor stroke occurred in the 5 Fr group (none in the SH group, both p=ns). Mean procedure time (52±21 vs. 45±21 minutes, p=0.004) and contrast load (160±45 ml vs. 140±45 ml, p=0.003) were greater in the SH group. CONCLUSIONS: Both 6.5 Fr SH GCs and 5 Fr GCs achieved high procedural TRI success with low RAO rates. The SH GC eliminated the disadvantages of the 5 Fr GC whilst maintaining the advantage of low RAO rates, and may become the GC of choice in TRI.
AIMS: To assess the safety and efficacy of a novel sheathless (SH) 6.5 Fr (French) hydrophilic-coated guiding catheter (GC) compared to the standard 5 Fr GCs in transradial coronary interventions (TRI). METHODS AND RESULTS:Patients undergoing TRI with 6.5 Fr SH or 5 Fr GCs were included. Baseline characteristics and in-hospital outcomes were recorded. Primary endpoints were procedural success and presence of radial pulse at discharge. Secondary endpoints were successful GC support, in-hospital adverse events, access-site complications, procedural duration and contrast load. There were 269 patients with 146 procedures in each group. The SH GC group had more non-ST elevation MI, in-stent restenosis, high-risk and bifurcation lesions. Procedural success in both arms was 95.2%. One patient in each group (0.7%) experienced radial artery occlusion (RAO) after TRI, without clinical sequelae. One access-site haematoma and one minor stroke occurred in the 5 Fr group (none in the SH group, both p=ns). Mean procedure time (52±21 vs. 45±21 minutes, p=0.004) and contrast load (160±45 ml vs. 140±45 ml, p=0.003) were greater in the SH group. CONCLUSIONS: Both 6.5 Fr SH GCs and 5 Fr GCs achieved high procedural TRI success with low RAO rates. The SH GC eliminated the disadvantages of the 5 Fr GC whilst maintaining the advantage of low RAO rates, and may become the GC of choice in TRI.