AIMS: The aim of this study was to compare the performance of the Tiger-II with Judkins 3.5L/4R catheters in coronary angiography (CAG) via the transradial approach (TRA). METHODS AND RESULTS:Consecutive patients undergoing non-urgent CAG via the right TRA were randomised to either the Tiger-II (Terumo) or Judkins (3.5L/4R; Medtronic) 5 Fr catheters; 320 patients in each group were randomised. Catheter or access site change was required in 57 (17.8%) vs. 68 (21.3%) patients allocated to the Tiger-II and Judkins group, respectively (p=0.3). The study's primary endpoint of contrast volume (ml) used until completion of CAG was lower for Tiger-II vs. Judkins group: 66.8 (54.0-82.0) vs. 73.4 (60.0-94.1), p<0.001. Angiography, fluoroscopy time (min) and severe spasm rate were also significantly lower for Tiger-II vs. Judkins group: 5.52 (4.17-7.32) vs. 6.85 (5.15-9.63), p<0.00, 2.01 (1.32-3.13) vs. 2.24 (1.50-3.50), p=0.01 and 6 (2.8%) vs. 39 (12.2%), p<0.001, respectively. The Tiger-II catheter obtained better opacification grade for the right coronary artery (RCA): 4.0 (4.0-4.0) vs. 4.0 (3.0-4.0), p=0.02, but slightly compromised opacification of the left anterior descending (LAD) and left circumflex (LCX) arteries compared with the Judkins group: 3.75 (3.0-4.0) vs. 4.0 (3.5-4.0), p<0.001, and 3.78 (3.6-4.0) vs. 4.0 (3.6-4.0), p<0.001, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The Tiger-II was found superior to the Judkins 3.5L/4R regarding contrast volume use, procedural and fluoroscopy time, spasm rate and RCA imaging, and inferior regarding LAD and LCX imaging.
RCT Entities:
AIMS: The aim of this study was to compare the performance of the Tiger-II with Judkins 3.5L/4R catheters in coronary angiography (CAG) via the transradial approach (TRA). METHODS AND RESULTS: Consecutive patients undergoing non-urgent CAG via the right TRA were randomised to either the Tiger-II (Terumo) or Judkins (3.5L/4R; Medtronic) 5 Fr catheters; 320 patients in each group were randomised. Catheter or access site change was required in 57 (17.8%) vs. 68 (21.3%) patients allocated to the Tiger-II and Judkins group, respectively (p=0.3). The study's primary endpoint of contrast volume (ml) used until completion of CAG was lower for Tiger-II vs. Judkins group: 66.8 (54.0-82.0) vs. 73.4 (60.0-94.1), p<0.001. Angiography, fluoroscopy time (min) and severe spasm rate were also significantly lower for Tiger-II vs. Judkins group: 5.52 (4.17-7.32) vs. 6.85 (5.15-9.63), p<0.00, 2.01 (1.32-3.13) vs. 2.24 (1.50-3.50), p=0.01 and 6 (2.8%) vs. 39 (12.2%), p<0.001, respectively. The Tiger-II catheter obtained better opacification grade for the right coronary artery (RCA): 4.0 (4.0-4.0) vs. 4.0 (3.0-4.0), p=0.02, but slightly compromised opacification of the left anterior descending (LAD) and left circumflex (LCX) arteries compared with the Judkins group: 3.75 (3.0-4.0) vs. 4.0 (3.5-4.0), p<0.001, and 3.78 (3.6-4.0) vs. 4.0 (3.6-4.0), p<0.001, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The Tiger-II was found superior to the Judkins 3.5L/4R regarding contrast volume use, procedural and fluoroscopy time, spasm rate and RCA imaging, and inferior regarding LAD and LCX imaging.
Authors: Joan Costa-Mateu; Diego Fernández-Rodríguez; Kristian Rivera; Juan Casanova; Patricia Irigaray; Marta Zielonka; Eduardo Pereyra-Acha; Albina Aldomá; Fernando Worner Journal: Arq Bras Cardiol Date: 2019-11 Impact factor: 2.000