AIMS: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of a 5-in-6 double catheter (DC) technique during transradial complex PCI compared to a conventional buddy-wire or balloon-anchoring approach. METHODS AND RESULTS: One hundred and eighty-seven patients who failed in stent or balloon delivery after successful wiring of the target vessel were prospectively randomised to further treatment with a 5-in-6 DC technique (DC group, n=94) or by a conventional buddy-wire or balloon-anchoring approach (control group, n=93). Baseline clinical and lesion features were comparable between the two groups. The primary endpoint of technical success was significantly higher in the DC than in the control group (97.9% and 39.8%, p<0.001). Fifty-six patients (60.2%) in the control group with failure of the buddy-wire or balloon-anchoring approach achieved successful PCI with bailout use of a DC technique. Procedural x-ray time (58.2±23.1 min vs. 94.9±18.6 min, p<0.001), patient dose-area product (23,970±8,555 cGy.cm2 vs. 44,475±10,573 cGy.cm2, p<0.001) and contrast consumption (177±33 ml vs. 271±70 ml, p<0.001) were significantly reduced in the DC group. One-year major adverse cardiac event-free survival did not differ between the two groups (89.4% vs. 84.9%, p=0.36). CONCLUSIONS: The use of a 5-in-6 DC technique, especially as a bailout strategy, is a more effective back-up support of the guiding system, subsequently facilitating the success of transradial PCI for complex coronary lesions, than a conventional buddy-wire or balloon-anchoring approach.
RCT Entities:
AIMS: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of a 5-in-6 double catheter (DC) technique during transradial complex PCI compared to a conventional buddy-wire or balloon-anchoring approach. METHODS AND RESULTS: One hundred and eighty-seven patients who failed in stent or balloon delivery after successful wiring of the target vessel were prospectively randomised to further treatment with a 5-in-6 DC technique (DC group, n=94) or by a conventional buddy-wire or balloon-anchoring approach (control group, n=93). Baseline clinical and lesion features were comparable between the two groups. The primary endpoint of technical success was significantly higher in the DC than in the control group (97.9% and 39.8%, p<0.001). Fifty-six patients (60.2%) in the control group with failure of the buddy-wire or balloon-anchoring approach achieved successful PCI with bailout use of a DC technique. Procedural x-ray time (58.2±23.1 min vs. 94.9±18.6 min, p<0.001), patient dose-area product (23,970±8,555 cGy.cm2 vs. 44,475±10,573 cGy.cm2, p<0.001) and contrast consumption (177±33 ml vs. 271±70 ml, p<0.001) were significantly reduced in the DC group. One-year major adverse cardiac event-free survival did not differ between the two groups (89.4% vs. 84.9%, p=0.36). CONCLUSIONS: The use of a 5-in-6 DC technique, especially as a bailout strategy, is a more effective back-up support of the guiding system, subsequently facilitating the success of transradial PCI for complex coronary lesions, than a conventional buddy-wire or balloon-anchoring approach.