| Literature DB >> 35295252 |
Lili Xu1,2, Jiatian Cao1,2, Meng Zhang3, Hongbo Yang1,2, Zheyong Huang1,2, Yanan Song1,2, Chenguang Li1,2, Yuxiang Dai1,2, Kang Yao1,2, Xiangfei Wang1,2, Feng Zhang1,2, Juying Qian1,2, Junbo Ge1,2.
Abstract
Background: Current guidewires for transradial coronary angiography had defects of passage difficulty or branch injury. This study sought to investigate the safety and efficiency of a novel method of active knuckle-angle 0.035-inch hydrophilic guidewire in transradial coronary angiography.Entities:
Keywords: coronary angiography; efficiency; knuckle guidewire; safety; transradial procedure
Year: 2022 PMID: 35295252 PMCID: PMC8918946 DOI: 10.3389/fcvm.2022.730648
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Cardiovasc Med ISSN: 2297-055X
Figure 1Guidewire performances. (A) Guidewire advancement. (B) Guidewire slipping into a branch artery. (C) Inserting 5F Tiger catheter and protruding guidewire for knuckle use. (D) Fixing guidewire tail and pulling back the catheter to loosen guidewire. (E) Knuckle guidewire advancement. (F) Passing artery loop.
Demographic characteristics.
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
| Age (years old) | 63 ± 10 | 63 ± 9 | 0.51 |
| Hypertension (%) | 723 (54.7) | 783 (53.7) | 0.62 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Prior myocardial infarction (%) | 122 (9.2) | 136 (9.3) | 0.92 |
| Family history (%) | 27 (2.0) | 35 (2.4) | 0.52 |
| Chronic kidney dysfunction (%) | 27 (2.0) | 18 (1.2) | 0.09 |
| Prior percutaneous coronary intervention (%) | 263 (19.9) | 275 (18.9) | 0.50 |
| Prior coronary artery bypass graft (%) | 8 (0.6) | 19 (1.3) | 0.15 |
| Left ventricular ejection fraction (%) | 62.3 ± 8.8 | 62.3 ± 8.4 | 0.99 |
Items in bold indicate statistically significant differences.
Interventional characteristics.
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Transradial access | 1,350 | 1,468 | 0.38 |
| Right radial artery (%) | 1,264 (93.6) | 1,386 (94.4) | |
| Left radial artery (%) | 86 (6.4) | 82 (5.6) | |
|
|
|
|
|
| Once (%) | 1 (100.0) | 76 (54.7) | |
| Twice (%) | 0 | 28 (20.1) | |
| Three times (%) | 0 | 27 (19.4) | |
| Four times (%) | 0 | 5 (3.6) | |
| Five times and more (%) | 0 | 3 (2.2) | |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |||
| Radial recurrent artery (%) | 0 (0.0) | 5 (0.3) | 0.03 |
| Internal mammary artery (%) | 0 (0.0) | 10 (0.7) | 0.003 |
| Common carotid artery (%) | 1 (0.08) | 13 (0.9) | 0.002 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Covered stent | 0 | 1 | |
| Compression | 0 | 1 | |
Items in bold indicate statistically significant differences.
Figure 2Unexpected perforation of right internal mammarian artery (RIMA) and treatment. (A) RIMA perforation. (B) Covered stent implantation. (C) Perforation sealed.
Baseline characteristics of safety and efficiency investigation.
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|
| Male (%) | 69 (58.0) | 81 (67.5) |
| Age (years old) | 62 ± 11 | 61 ± 10 |
| Hypertension (%) | 71 (59.7) | 63 (52.5) |
| Hyperlipidemia (%) | 15 (12.6) | 14 (11.7) |
| Diabetes mellitus (%) | 25 (21.0) | 25 (20.8) |
| Smoking (%) | 45 (37.8) | 37 (30.8) |
| Prior myocardial infarction (%) | 16 (13.4) | 8 (6.7) |
| Prior percutaneous coronary intervention (%) | 17 (14.3) | 18 (15.0) |
| Prior coronary artery bypass graft (%) | 1 (0.8) | 2 (1.7) |
| Left ventricular ejection fraction (%) | 64.1 ± 7.0 | 62.4 ± 8.2 |
|
| ||
| First time puncture (%) | 92 (77.3) | 96 (80.0) |
| Right radial artery (%) | 115 (96.6) | 112 (93.3) |
| Loops (%) | 2 (1.7) | 2 (1.7) |
Endpoints of safety and efficiency investigation.
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
| Perforation (%) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | NA |
|
|
|
|
|
Duration of time is presented as “median (range)”. Items in bold indicate statistically significant differences.