Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Herz. 2018 May 16. doi: 10.1007/s00059-018-4707-1. [Epub ahead of print]

Comparison of procedural success between two radial sheaths : Comparison of the 6-Fr Glidesheath Slender to 6-Fr standard sheath.

Author information

1
Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, 789 Howard Ave Dana 3rd floor, 06519, New Haven, CT, USA.
2
Yale Center of Analytical Sciences, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, CT, USA.
3
Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, 789 Howard Ave Dana 3rd floor, 06519, New Haven, CT, USA. robert.attaran@yale.edu.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

The most common cause of procedural failure in cardiac catheterization using the transradial approach is radial artery spasm. The aim of this study was to compare the procedural success rate of the 6‑Fr Glidesheath Slender with the 6‑Fr standard sheath in transradial coronary angiography and intervention.

METHODS:

Patients who underwent percutaneous coronary angiography via the transradial approach through placement of a 6-Fr Glidesheath Slender or a 6-Fr standard sheath for primary radial access were prospectively enrolled in the study.

RESULTS:

The study included 200 cases: 76 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary angiography with the Glidesheath Slender and 124 patients with the standard sheath. Failed procedures were recorded for 19 patients (9.5%), defined as inability to complete the procedure via the primary access. There was no difference in the percentage of failed cases between the Glidesheath Slender and standard sheath groups (10.5% vs. 8.9%, OR = 1.21, p = 0.8). More cases of spasm were observed in the Glidesheath Slender group compared with the standard sheath group, which was not statistically significant (7.9% vs. 5.7%, OR = 1.43, p = 0.56). Smoking, hyperlipidemia, and age influenced the procedural outcome in the Glidesheath Slender group, while body mass index, sex, and smoking impacted the procedural outcome in the standard sheath group.

CONCLUSION:

There is no difference in procedural success rates, as defined by the ability to complete the procedure via primary radial access, between the 6‑Fr Glidesheath Slender and the 6‑Fr standard sheath. Our study suggests that the patient characteristics that elevate the risk of procedural failure for Glidesheath Slender may differ from those for the standard sheath.

KEYWORDS:

Angiography; Angioplasty; Catheterization; Percutaneous coronary intervention; Radial artery

PMID:
29767330
DOI:
10.1007/s00059-018-4707-1

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Springer
Loading ...
Support Center