Why the study?
Differences in access-site complications between Glidesheath slender and sheathless guiding catheters during PCI for ACS were unknown.
Does the 7-Fr Glidesheath slender/7-Fr guiding catheter combination reduce radial artery occlusion compared to a 7.5-Fr sheathless guiding catheter in patients undergoing transradial PCI for ACS?
Does the 7-Fr Glidesheath slender/7-Fr guiding catheter combination reduce radial artery occlusion compared to a 7.5-Fr sheathless guiding catheter in patients undergoing transradial PCI for ACS?
Using a 7-Fr Glidesheath slender/7-Fr guiding catheter combination for transradial PCI in ACS significantly reduces the risk of 30-day radial artery occlusion compared to a 7.5-Fr sheathless guiding catheter.
Glidesheath slender/7-Fr GC combination may lower access-site complications versus sheathless Eaucath in transradial ACS PCI; leaves open randomized confirmation.
A Glidesheath slender (Terumo, Tokyo, Japan) and a sheathless Eaucath guiding catheter (Asahi Intecc, Nagoya, Japan) are two major slender devices utilized in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). This study aimed to investigate the differences in access-site complications between these devices in PCI for acute coronary syndrome (ACS). A total of 1108 consecutive patients who underwent transradial PCI for ACS were enrolled. Transradial PCI was performed using either a 7-Fr Glidesheath slender/7-Fr guiding catheter combination (Glidesheath group) or a 7.5-Fr sheathless guiding catheter (Sheathless group); 1 : 1 propensity score matching was performed, and 728 patients (364 in each group) were included in the propensity-matched population. In the matched patients, univariate analysis revealed that the Glidesheath group had less radial artery occlusion (RAO) at 30 days (Glidesheath: 1.4% vs. Sheathless: 4.1%, odds ratio (OR) = 0.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.12–0.91, <a:math xmlns:a="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M1"> <a:mi>p</a:mi> <a:mo>=</a:mo> <a:mn>0.039</a:mn> </a:math> ), whereas no significant between-group differences were observed in severe radial spasm (Glidesheath: 1.4% vs. Sheathless: 1.9%, OR = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.23–2.22, <c:math xmlns:c="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M2"> <c:mi>p</c:mi> <c:mo>=</c:mo> <c:mn>0.58</c:mn> </c:math> ) or access-site major bleeding (Glidesheath: 1.4% vs. Sheathless: 1.6%, OR = 0.83, 95% CI = 0.26–2.71, <e:math xmlns:e="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M3"> <e:mi>p</e:mi> <e:mo>=</e:mo> <e:mn>1.00</e:mn> </e:math> ). Multivariate analysis revealed that the choice for Glidesheath was significantly associated with less RAO (OR = 0.32, 95% CI = 0.11–0.93, <g:math xmlns:g="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M4"> <g:mi>p</g:mi> <g:mo>=</g:mo> <g:mn>0.036</g:mn> </g:math> ). In conclusion, 7-Fr Glidesheath slender/7-Fr guiding catheter combination is obviously more advantageous than 7.5-Fr sheathless guiding catheters for decreased risk of RAO. The potential low risk of RAO in our findings supports the adoption of the 7-Fr Glidesheath slender sheath/7-Fr guiding catheter combination in transradial PCI for ACS.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Isawa et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: