• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

经桡动脉途径行冠状动脉造影时,第二代老虎导管与Judkins导管的比较疗效和安全性:一项荟萃分析。

The comparative efficacy and safety of Tiger II versus judkins catheters in coronary angiogram via the radial artery access: a meta-analysis.

作者信息

Aljabali Ahmed, Alawajneh Mohmmad M, Hammad Arafat, Nguyen Danh, Alkasabrah Abdel Rahman, Abuein Khaled, Altibi Ahmed M

机构信息

Faculty of Medicine, Jordan University of Science and Technology, Irbid, Jordan.

Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA.

出版信息

Acta Cardiol. 2025 Feb;80(1):39-43. doi: 10.1080/00015385.2024.2442799. Epub 2025 Jan 9.

DOI:10.1080/00015385.2024.2442799
PMID:39781598
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Trans-radial coronary angiogram (TR-CAG) has gained popularity due to lower complication rates compared to transfemoral access. Operators can use either conventional catheters, such as Judkins, or single dedicated catheters, such as Tiger-II. This meta-analysis compared the safety and efficacy of Tiger-II versus Judkins catheters in TR-CAG.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane Library through February 2024 for studies comparing Tiger-II and Judkins catheters in TR-CAG. Fixed- and random-effect models pooled estimates of odds ratios (ORs) and standardised mean differences (SMDs). Primary outcomes included fluoroscopy time and contrast volume. Secondary outcomes included procedural time, radiation exposure, procedural success, radial artery vasospasm, and crossover rate.

RESULTS

Seven studies with 2879 patients (1799 in Tiger-II and 1080 in Judkins) were included. Tiger-II use significantly reduced fluoroscopy time (SMD = -0.50 min, 95% CI [-0.80, -0.19],  < 0.01), procedural time (MD = -2.00 min, 95% CI [-2.35, -1.66],  < 0.01), and contrast volume (MD = -7.48 ml, 95% CI [-12.66, -2.29],  < 0.01). Radial artery spasm incidence was also lower (OR = 0.30, 95% CI [0.12, 0.75],  = 0.01). There were no significant differences in radiation exposure, procedural success, or crossover rate.

CONCLUSION

Tiger-II catheters offer reduced fluoroscopy time, procedural time, contrast volume, and radial artery spasm rates in TR-CAG.

摘要

背景

与经股动脉途径相比,经桡动脉冠状动脉造影术(TR-CAG)因并发症发生率较低而越来越受欢迎。操作者可以使用传统导管,如Judkins导管,或专用单导管,如Tiger-II导管。本荟萃分析比较了Tiger-II导管与Judkins导管在TR-CAG中的安全性和有效性。

方法

我们检索了截至2024年2月的PubMed、Web of Science、Scopus和Cochrane图书馆,以查找比较Tiger-II导管和Judkins导管在TR-CAG中的研究。固定效应模型和随机效应模型汇总了比值比(OR)和标准化均值差(SMD)的估计值。主要结局包括透视时间和造影剂用量。次要结局包括手术时间、辐射暴露、手术成功率、桡动脉痉挛和交叉率。

结果

纳入了7项研究,共2879例患者(Tiger-II组1799例,Judkins组1080例)。使用Tiger-II导管可显著缩短透视时间(SMD = -0.50分钟,95%可信区间[-0.80, -0.19],P < 0.01)、手术时间(MD = -2.00分钟,95%可信区间[-2.35, -1.66],P < 0.01)和造影剂用量(MD = -7.48毫升,95%可信区间[-12.66, -2.29],P < 0.01)。桡动脉痉挛发生率也较低(OR = 0.30,95%可信区间[0.12, 0.75],P = 0.01)。辐射暴露、手术成功率或交叉率无显著差异。

结论

在TR-CAG中,Tiger-II导管可缩短透视时间、手术时间、减少造影剂用量并降低桡动脉痉挛发生率。

相似文献

1
The comparative efficacy and safety of Tiger II versus judkins catheters in coronary angiogram via the radial artery access: a meta-analysis.经桡动脉途径行冠状动脉造影时,第二代老虎导管与Judkins导管的比较疗效和安全性:一项荟萃分析。
Acta Cardiol. 2025 Feb;80(1):39-43. doi: 10.1080/00015385.2024.2442799. Epub 2025 Jan 9.
2
Randomised comparison of JUDkins vs. tiGEr catheter in coronary angiography via the right radial artery: the JUDGE study.经右桡动脉行冠状动脉造影时,JUDkins 与 tiGEr 导管的随机比较:JUDGE 研究。
EuroIntervention. 2018 Mar 20;13(16):1950-1958. doi: 10.4244/EIJ-D-17-00699.
3
Comparison of single-catheter with two-catheter concept in older female patients undergoing transradial coronary angiography.老年女性患者经桡动脉冠状动脉造影中单导管与双导管概念的比较。
Herz. 2025 Feb;50(1):59-65. doi: 10.1007/s00059-024-05289-4. Epub 2025 Jan 3.
4
Novel diagnostic catheter specifically designed for both coronary arteries via the right transradial approach. A prospective, randomized trial of Tiger II vs. Judkins catheters.专门为经右桡动脉途径用于冠状动脉而设计的新型诊断导管。Tiger II导管与Judkins导管的前瞻性随机试验。
Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2006 Jun-Aug;22(3-4):295-303. doi: 10.1007/s10554-005-9029-8. Epub 2005 Nov 22.
5
TIger II vs JUdkins Catheters for Transradial Coronary Angiography (TIJUCA Study): A Randomized Controlled Trial of Radiation Exposure.经桡动脉入路冠状动脉造影术中 Tiger II 导管与 Judkins 导管的应用比较(TIJUCA 研究):一项辐射暴露的随机对照试验。
J Invasive Cardiol. 2021 Mar;33(3):E200-E205. Epub 2021 Feb 18.
6
Comparison of Standard Catheters Versus Radial Artery-Specific Catheter in Patients Who Underwent Coronary Angiography Through Transradial Access.经桡动脉途径行冠状动脉造影患者中标准导管与桡动脉专用导管的比较。
Am J Cardiol. 2016 Aug 1;118(3):357-61. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2016.05.010. Epub 2016 May 17.
7
Performance of One- Compared With Two-Catheter Concepts in Transradial Coronary Angiography (from the Randomized Use of Different Diagnostic Catheters-Radial-Trial).经桡动脉入路应用不同诊断导管的随机对照研究(RADIAL 试验):单导管与双导管技术在经桡动脉冠状动脉造影中的应用比较
Am J Cardiol. 2018 Nov 15;122(10):1647-1651. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2018.07.039. Epub 2018 Aug 20.
8
Comparison of one-catheter strategy versus conventional two-catheter strategy on the volume of radiological contrast and diagnostic coronary catheterization performance by transradial access: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.经桡动脉入路单导管策略与传统双导管策略在放射学造影剂用量和诊断性冠状动脉造影性能方面的比较:一项随机临床试验的系统评价和荟萃分析。
Arch Cardiol Mex. 2020;90(4):442-451. doi: 10.24875/ACM.19000352.
9
Impact of One-Catheter Strategy with TIG I Catheter on Coronary Catheterization Performance and Economic Costs.TIG I 导管单导管策略对冠状动脉造影性能和经济成本的影响。
Arq Bras Cardiol. 2019 Nov;113(5):960-968. doi: 10.5935/abc.20190232.
10
5-Fr sheathless transradial cardiac catheterization using conventional catheters and balloon assisted tracking; a new approach to downsizing.使用传统导管和球囊辅助追踪技术的5F无鞘经桡动脉心脏导管插入术;一种缩小尺寸的新方法。
Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2017 Jan-Feb;18(1):28-32. doi: 10.1016/j.carrev.2016.09.003. Epub 2016 Sep 18.