Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
F. Gobeil, T. Lefévre, Y. Louvard, J. Piéchaud, M. Morice (2000)
Coronary angioplasty using 5 French guiding catheters: preliminary experienceCatheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions, 51
Domingo Domingo, Lupon‐Roses Lupon‐Roses, Angel Angel (1988)
Five French versus eight French catheters and the Judkins technique. Advantages and limitations for studying coronary artery diseaseInt J Card Imaging, 3
E. García, R. Moreno, M. Gómez-Recio (2001)
Successful stent delivery through 5 French guiding catheter.The Journal of invasive cardiology, 13 1
J. Ormiston, Bridget Dixon, M. Webster, P. Ruygrok (2001)
5 French guide catheters for percutaneous coronary intervention: A feasibility study in 100 consecutive patientsCatheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions, 52
S. Saito, H. Ikei, G. Hosokawa, Shinji Tanaka (1999)
Influence of the ratio between radial artery inner diameter and sheath outer diameter on radial artery flow after transradial coronary interventionCatheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions, 46
W. Schöbel, I. Spyridopoulos, H. Hoffmeister, Ludger Seipel (2001)
Percutaneous coronary interventions using a new 5 French guiding catheter: Results of a prospective studyCatheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions, 53
Arora Arora, Naik Naik, Bahl Bahl (2002)
Coronary angiography using 4 French catheters with power injection: A randomized comparison with 6‐French cathetersIndian Heart J, 54
E. Domingo, J. Lupón-Rosés, J. Angel, I. Anívarro, J. Soler‐Soler (1988)
Five French versus eight French catheters and the Judkins techniqueThe International Journal of Cardiac Imaging, 3
J. Dahm, D. Vogelgesang, A. Hummel, A. Staudt, H. Völzke, S. Felix (2002)
A randomized trial of 5 vs. 6 French transradial percutaneous coronary interventionsCatheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions, 57
J. Schussler, Robert Smith, M. Schreibfeder, Dorothy Hill, A. Anwar (2000)
Five French (5 Fr) guiding catheters for percutaneous coronary angioplasty and stent placement: An initial feasibility studyCatheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions, 51
F. Kiemeneij, G. Laarman, D. Odekerken, T. Slagboom, R. Wieken (1997)
A randomized comparison of percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty by the radial, brachial and femoral approaches: the access study.Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 29 6
R. Rakhit, Christoph Matter, S. Windecker, A. Garachemani, C. Seiler, F. Eberli (2002)
Five French versus 6 French PCI: a case control study of efficacy, safety and outcome.The Journal of invasive cardiology, 14 11
Von R, Oz, Marone, Mccormick (1998)
Deep Intubation of 6 French Guiding Catheters for Transradial Coronary Interventions.The Journal of invasive cardiology, 10 4
F. Kiemeneij, G. Laarman, E. Melker (1995)
Transradial artery coronary angioplasty.American heart journal, 129 1
Smaller guiding catheters can help reduce local complications and patient morbidity during transradial coronary intervention (TRI). This study was designed to compare the patient's morbidity, success rate, and the operator's convenience between 5‐French (5Fr) and 6‐French (6Fr) TRIs. This is a single‐center prospective randomized study. Patients who underwent TRI, in 2003, were prospectively randomized to either 5Fr or 6Fr catheter groups (100 patients in each group). Procedure‐related patient morbidity as well as clinical and procedural characteristics was scored and analyzed. Procedural success rate was not significantly different between the groups. The number of unsatisfactory supports (6% in 5Fr group, 3% in 6Fr group; P = 0.31) and the incidence of local wound complications were not significantly different between the groups. Local wound pain scores were significantly lower in the 5Fr group compared with the 6Fr group, particularly during sheath insertion and removal, and during procedures. Pain scores were higher in female patients than in male patients during sheath removal (male: 1.3 ± 1.3, female: 1.7 ± 1.5; P = 0.049). Radial artery diameter was well correlated with local pain score during sheath removal (r = 0.31, P < 0.001), and with the height and weight of the patients (height: r = 0.33, P < 0.001; weight: r = 0.27, P < 0.001). In conclusion, using a 5Fr catheter during TRI reduce, local access site pain, particularly in female patients with smaller body size, whereas the success and local complication rates were similar to a 6Fr approach.
Journal of Interventional Cardiology – Wiley
Published: Apr 1, 2006
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.