...
首页> 外文期刊>Cureus. >Operator-Controlled Comparison Between 5 French and 6 French Guiding Catheters for Percutaneous Intervention Using Transradial Approach
【24h】

Operator-Controlled Comparison Between 5 French and 6 French Guiding Catheters for Percutaneous Intervention Using Transradial Approach

机译:操作员控制的5个法国和6个法国引导导管之间的比较,用于使用跨派方法经皮干预

获取原文
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

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.
机译:目的比较关于跨越经皮冠状动脉干预(PCI)的对比度施用,透明时间和总程序时间的对比度的5个法语(FR)和6FR引导导管。背景技术以前的研究比较了5 fr和6 fr导管,并被视为5 fr导管安全有效。本研究中,我们回顾性地将5个FR导管与6 FR导管进行了追求,试图消除操作型技术级别可变性的效果。方法在单一中心,回顾性队列研究中,我们随机选择通过使用5FR或6 FR导管通过跨派进入接收PCI的患者。该研究涉及两组100名患者。这些组由每个操作员的等同案例组成。主要终点是造影剂量。辅助端点是透视时间和程序时间。结果在5 FR组Vs.6 FR导管组(140.2〜±45.7ml与158.2→66.7ml,p = 0.004)中使用对比度较少的对比度。使用5 FR导管的PCI与较短的透视时间相关(13.7±7.3分钟,与15.2?±8.2分钟,P = 0.584)和更短的程序时间(43.7?±22.2分钟与46.5?±19.7分钟, p = 0.890),但这并不统计学意义。结论使用5FR引导导管的串联PCI与较小的造影剂中使用较少,但与6FR导管相比,没有关于程序时间或透视时间的优点。与6FR导管相似,在治疗具有相同复杂程度水平的冠状动脉病变时,通过径向访问实现了高PCI成功率。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号