Hirzallah Hisham, Mansoor Kanaan, Amro Ahmed, Parsons Julia, Suliman Mohamed S, Kusmic Damir, Jawaid Yasir, Numan Yazan, Akpanudo Sutoidem M, Thompson Ellen
Cardiology, Marshall University Joan C. Edwards School of Medicine, Huntington, USA.
Internal Medicine, Marshall University Joan C. Edwards School of Medicine, Huntington, USA.
Cureus. 2020 Jun 2;12(6):e8406. doi: 10.7759/cureus.8406.
Objective To compare 5 French (Fr) and 6 Fr guiding catheters regarding the volume of contrast administered, fluoroscopy time, and total procedure time during transradial percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Background Previous studies had compared 5 Fr and 6 Fr catheters and deemed 5 Fr catheters safe and effective. In this study, we retrospectively compared the 5 Fr catheter to 6 Fr catheter with an attempt to eliminate the effect of inter-operator skill level variability. Methods In a single-center, retrospective cohort study, we randomly selected patients who had received PCI through transradial access using 5 Fr or 6 Fr catheters. The study involved two groups of 100 patients each. These groups were comprised of an equal number of cases from each operator. The primary endpoint was contrast medium volume. Secondary endpoints were fluoroscopy time and procedure time. Results Less contrast was used in the 5 Fr group vs. 6 Fr catheter group (140.2 ± 45.7 mL vs. 158.2 ± 66.7 mL, p=0.004). PCI using 5 Fr catheters was associated with shorter fluoroscopy time (13.7 ± 7.3 mins vs. 15.2 ± 8.2 mins, p=0.584) and shorter procedure time (43.7 ± 22.2 mins vs. 46.5 ± 19.7 mins, p=0.890), but this was not statistically significant. Conclusion Transradial PCI using 5 Fr guiding catheters was associated with less contrast medium usage, but there was no advantage regarding procedure time or fluoroscopy time when compared to 6 Fr catheters. Similar to 6 Fr catheters, 5 Fr catheters achieved high PCI success rates through radial access when compared in the treatment of coronary lesions with the same level of complexity.
目的 比较5法国（Fr）和6 Fr引导导管在经桡动脉经皮冠状动脉介入治疗（PCI）过程中造影剂用量、透视时间和总手术时间。背景 既往研究比较了5 Fr和6 Fr导管，并认为5 Fr导管安全有效。在本研究中，我们回顾性地将5 Fr导管与6 Fr导管进行比较，试图消除术者技术水平差异的影响。方法 在一项单中心回顾性队列研究中，我们随机选择了通过桡动脉途径使用5 Fr或6 Fr导管接受PCI的患者。该研究包括两组，每组100例患者。这些组由来自每位术者的相等数量的病例组成。主要终点是造影剂用量。次要终点是透视时间和手术时间。结果 5 Fr组与6 Fr导管组相比使用的造影剂更少（140.2±45.7 mL对158.2±66.7 mL，p = 0.004）。使用5 Fr导管进行PCI与更短的透视时间（13.7±7.3分钟对15.2±8.2分钟，p = 0.584）和更短的手术时间（43.7±22.2分钟对46.5±19.7分钟，p = 0.890）相关，但这在统计学上无显著意义。结论 使用5 Fr引导导管进行经桡动脉PCI与更少的造影剂使用相关，但与6 Fr导管相比，在手术时间或透视时间方面没有优势。与6 Fr导管类似，在治疗相同复杂程度的冠状动脉病变时，5 Fr导管通过桡动脉途径也取得了较高的PCI成功率。
